Author: blass uri
Date: 06:54:39 12/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1999 at 06:58:26, Amir Ban wrote: >On December 20, 1999 at 20:18:55, Greg Lindahl wrote: > >>On December 20, 1999 at 19:55:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Remember that there are at _least_ as many that spend less time in the eval >>>than I do. And that I doubt if anybody is as high as 90%. >> >>I know of one example which spends 90% in eval. And as you know, if eval becomes >>cheaper, it might behoove you to use more of it. >> >>>DB didn't, but belle did, and hitech did, and so forth. >> >>I disagree. You can't prove that no other approach produces a really fast >>engine. It's logically impossible with the data that you have in hand. >> >>> There is no one >>> piece you can pick out and make execute in zero time, and produce any big >>> performance boost. >> >>Other than an engine which spends 90% of its time in eval. They tell me that >>this is a religious issue in the chess world -- how smart of an evaluation >>function to use, how clever you can be picking moves, etc etc. What you're >>asserting is that you know every possible permutation, algorithm, and factor. >>Quite a strong claim. I wish I was that smart in the field that I specialize in. >> > >I believe there are engines that take 90% for eval, but I'm pretty sure that no >first-rank engine does. This means that you have 10% left for all the rest, and >you have at least a 5-to-1 handicap in search speed against other engines. >There's no way to successfully compete with this kind of handicap. I guess that hiarcs7.32 use something close to 90% for eval. I think that it succesfully compete with this kind of handicap. > >Doing the evaluation in h/w will improve this program a lot, and will probably >put it in the top ranks, but that's a poor reason for doing such an effort. >Obviously you are not going to do this project to enable a mediocre engine to be >competitive, but to build something that will have a clear advantage over any >s/w-only approach. > >My program takes less than 20% on evaluation, by the way. I see that it has not enough knowledge but the same is right for other top programs who use more time for evaluation. I believe that it is a mistake not to use more time for evaluation because a good evaluation can give your program also knoledge which lines to prune and which line to extend so the fact you are going to be slower in nps does not say that you will be slower in tactics. Uri
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.