Use greater-than-operator for 'improving' #2496
Conversation
Currently on a normal bench run in ~0,7% of cases 'improving' is set to
true although the static eval isn't improving at all, just keeping
equal. It looks like the gt-operator is more appropriate here,
since it returns to 'improving' its literal meaning without sideffects.
STC {-1.00,3.00} failed yellow:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1ec38c8fd5f550e4ae1c28
LLR: -2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 53155 W: 10170 L: 10109 D: 32876
Ptnml(0-2): 863, 6282, 12251, 6283, 892
bench: 5216925
non-regression LTC passed:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1f1c0d8fd5f550e4ae1c41
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 23961 W: 3114 L: 3018 D: 17829
Ptnml(0-2): 163, 2220, 7114, 2298, 170
bench: 4561386
|
Beforehand: I don't like that currently 'improving' is set to true, even if the eval isn't improving at all. This contratdicts the Principle of Least Surprise. |
|
Improving is just an empirical heuristic which AFAICS does not have any theoretical foundation. So as long as this heuristic is not understood better, I would say it doesn't matter whether < or <= is used, as long as they are equivalent Elo wise. |
|
I'd be in favour of merging this, considering the test results and the code change. Using >= instead of > also failed to show any gain in other engines I saw it tested for. If we want to be sure it's not worth a little something to keep it (or better, that it gains a tiny something to remove it), a 3rd test might be needed. |
|
Looks good to me. |
Currently on a normal bench run in ~0,7% of cases 'improving' is set to
true although the static eval isn't improving at all, just keeping
equal. It looks like the gt-operator is more appropriate here,
since it returns to 'improving' its literal meaning without sideffects.
STC {-1.00,3.00} failed yellow:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1ec38c8fd5f550e4ae1c28
LLR: -2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 53155 W: 10170 L: 10109 D: 32876
Ptnml(0-2): 863, 6282, 12251, 6283, 892
non-regression LTC passed:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1f1c0d8fd5f550e4ae1c41
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 23961 W: 3114 L: 3018 D: 17829
Ptnml(0-2): 163, 2220, 7114, 2298, 170
bench: 4561386
|
Merged via f63d112, thanks! |
Currently on a normal bench run in ~0,7% of cases 'improving' is set to
true although the static eval isn't improving at all, just keeping
equal. It looks like the strict gt-operator is more appropriate here,
since it returns to 'improving' its literal meaning without sideffects.
STC {-1.00,3.00} failed yellow:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1ec38c8fd5f550e4ae1c28
LLR: -2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 53155 W: 10170 L: 10109 D: 32876
Ptnml(0-2): 863, 6282, 12251, 6283, 892
non-regression LTC passed:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1f1c0d8fd5f550e4ae1c41
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 23961 W: 3114 L: 3018 D: 17829
Ptnml(0-2): 163, 2220, 7114, 2298, 170
CLoses official-stockfish/Stockfish#2496
bench: 4561386
4 participants
Currently on a normal bench run in ~0,7% of cases 'improving' is set to true although the static eval isn't improving at all, just keeping equal. It looks like the gt-operator is more appropriate here,
since it returns to 'improving' its literal meaning without having other side effects.
STC {-1.00,3.00} failed yellow:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1ec38c8fd5f550e4ae1c28
LLR: -2.93 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.00,3.00}
Total: 53155 W: 10170 L: 10109 D: 32876
Ptnml(0-2): 863, 6282, 12251, 6283, 892
non-regression LTC passed:
https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5e1f1c0d8fd5f550e4ae1c41
LLR: 2.98 (-2.94,2.94) {-1.50,0.50}
Total: 23961 W: 3114 L: 3018 D: 17829
Ptnml(0-2): 163, 2220, 7114, 2298, 170
bench: 4561386