Re: [Bug-gnubg] An evalutaion of the pruning nets

[Joseph Heled]

As the person who "independently discovered" the reduced evaluation (I am sure 
others have thought about it before), I will be happy to see them go.
Everything you can do with the reduced evaluation, you can do faster and with 
better accuracy with the prune nets. The whole reason I developed the prune nets 
was my dissatisfaction with reduced evaluations. I am not sure I have the time 
to prove to you they are bad, but I am very confident that is the case.

As to your idea of half ply, it is a good one. It certainly improves on 1ply and 
I certainly would love to see it in GNUbg. The way things work, this will 
probably not happen before I implement it myself ...

-Joseph


Nis Jorgensen wrote:
> Øystein Johansen wrote:
>
> > Jim Segrave wrote:
> > | Given the enormous speed increase from the pruning nets, I am inclined
> > | to agree with Joseph Heled that we should simply remove reduced
> > | analysis.
> >
> > Me too! I also agree that the reduced evaluations can be removed. I
> > believe that the "old" reduced evaluation gives more deviations from the
> > "ordinary" nets than the pruning net reduction.
>
>
> I still have my suggested "fractional ply" code lying around, which uses
> the "reduced" settings. Not sure whether they can be merged with the
> current code though.
>
> I never got around to actually testing whether it was improving on the
> playing strength. I have a hope that it can work in combination with the
> pruned nets - together allowing us to achieve better playing strength in
> the same timespan.
>
> My compilation environment is broken, so it might take some time before
> I can get this working again. And I still don't have a framework for
> testing playing strength. But I would definitely be sad to see reduced
> evaluation being removed from the code.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg