Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Two tactical positions

Author: Bas Hamstra

Date: 04:00:11 11/25/99

Go up one level in this thread


On November 25, 1999 at 05:11:52, James Robertson wrote:

>On November 25, 1999 at 03:50:30, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>
>>On November 24, 1999 at 20:16:31, William Bryant wrote:
>>
>>>On November 24, 1999 at 00:02:37, Jon Dart wrote:
>>>
>>>[Minor Snip]
>>>>
>>>>Maybe you've got over-aggressive forward pruning or lazy eval?
>>>>(It could be a lot of other things, but these come to mind).
>>>>
>>>>--Jon
>>>
>>>Jon,
>>>	can I speculate that you _do_not_ do a lazy eval.  I have been trying
>>>to get this to work but it actually makes my program weaker.  I suspect that
>>>it is because my eval is not complex enought to make lazy eval time effective.
>>>
>>>You thoughts or comments?
>>>
>>>William
>>>wbryant@ix.netcom.com
>>
>>I have tried Lazy Eval with different settings and found no big speed
>>improvements. IE I never ever saw the 50% speed gain reported by Bob. I have a
>>relatively big eval.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bas Hamstra.
>
>I gain a huge amount through lazy eval, even though my maximum positional score
>is around three pawns.
>
>James

But does it search *deeper* ?

When I run the 50 hardest wacs for 5 sec/pos and I determine the average depth
(thats what it is all about, no?) it don't seem to make a big difference.

Say average depth without lazy is 9.00 and with at most 9.10 or so.


Regards,
Bas Hamstra.










This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.