Move filters are very tricky. I am pretty sure the testing I did 20+ years ago, when I developed them, should be repeated with the current net and taking the huge advance in cpu speed into account.
-Joseph On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 at 05:30, Frank Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > > eval evaluates the current position only, not the possible checker plays > > or cube action, so the move filter is irrelevant. The evaluation is done > > at the ply level you asked. > well at +1 ply you could evaluate more than the best move as well, only > due that BG has much better evaluation function than chess we can do that :) > > > The best move is clear enough that there are no other "moves within > > equity 0.16" and the evaluation stops at 0 ply. > Ah, ok, that explains the behaviour. I feel it is a bit surprising, > getting 0-ply when asking for 2-ply but that surely makes sense > performancewise. > > > > > Moves 2 and 3 are now close enough at 0 ply to be evaluated more deeply. > > > > Another possibility is to raise n in the "keep the first <n> 0-ply > > moves". It probably makes sense only for analysis or hint, not for > > actual play or rollouts. > It costs a lot of time and only rarely finds a better move. I did this > earlier and removed it for exactly that reasons. > > > > > But in this case a good value for n is not obvious. 1 is dubious and > > could lead to issues like in > > https://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?read=213668 > > > > Then how much? 2? More? Something somehow correlated to the "more moves > > within equity" parameters? > I completely agree, a wide filter is probably the better solution. > > Thanks for your response. > > best > Frank >
