+1Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I guess much higher eval granularity is a nice way to simultaneously pick up the best move and avoid unwelcome early draws.
Even Andscacs has a (not much but growing) more complex evaluation.
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
+1Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I guess much higher eval granularity is a nice way to simultaneously pick up the best move and avoid unwelcome early draws.
This would be a pretty useless approach. You can measure deviation only through eval, if eval difference is small it means position is more/less equal so the other engine would be assumed strong even if it wasn't. If there was a more significant difference in eval stronger engine would be already winning so any contempt there would be useless.egiovannotti wrote:An engine could determine how strong is another analyzing deviations from the evaluations regarding to the own, this a once being outside the book.
Seems even more convincing now, after 52/62 games:Houdini wrote:Interesting because Houdini is playing without contempt in the TCEC tournament.Laskos wrote:Houdini keeps the Queen longer to win (average number of Queens on the board at the win adjudication, significant result):
Houdini: 0.95
Stockfish: 0.75
Komodo: 0.67
I'm not sure whether the numbers above are just a statistical fluke, or whether the (rather big) changes to the H5 evaluation function have produced this side-effect.
Just computed how reliable these results are: 94% likelihood that the average of Houdini is higher than the average of Stockfish, and 95% likelihood higher than Komodo average.Laskos wrote:Seems even more convincing now, after 52/62 games:Houdini wrote:Interesting because Houdini is playing without contempt in the TCEC tournament.Laskos wrote:Houdini keeps the Queen longer to win (average number of Queens on the board at the win adjudication, significant result):
Houdini: 0.95
Stockfish: 0.75
Komodo: 0.67
I'm not sure whether the numbers above are just a statistical fluke, or whether the (rather big) changes to the H5 evaluation function have produced this side-effect.
Average number of Queens on the board at the Win adjudication:
Houdini: 1.00
Stockfish: 0.70
Komodo: 0.67
another possible explanation: H overvalues the queen, which is a matter of fact, though this migth be simply an engine feature and not a weakness.Laskos wrote:Just computed how reliable these results are: 94% likelihood that the average of Houdini is higher than the average of Stockfish, and 95% likelihood higher than Komodo average.Laskos wrote:Seems even more convincing now, after 52/62 games:Houdini wrote:Interesting because Houdini is playing without contempt in the TCEC tournament.Laskos wrote:Houdini keeps the Queen longer to win (average number of Queens on the board at the win adjudication, significant result):
Houdini: 0.95
Stockfish: 0.75
Komodo: 0.67
I'm not sure whether the numbers above are just a statistical fluke, or whether the (rather big) changes to the H5 evaluation function have produced this side-effect.
Average number of Queens on the board at the Win adjudication:
Houdini: 1.00
Stockfish: 0.70
Komodo: 0.67