Skip to content

Double probability of using classical eval #3114

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
SFisGOD wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Double probability of using classical eval #3114

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 4 additions & 1 deletion src/evaluate.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1015,10 +1015,13 @@ namespace {

Value Eval::evaluate(const Position& pos) {

// Use classical eval if there is a large imbalance
// If there is a moderate imbalance, use classical eval with probability (1/8),
// as derived from the node counter.
bool useClassical = abs(eg_value(pos.psq_score())) * 16 > NNUEThreshold1 * (16 + pos.rule50_count());
bool classical = !Eval::useNNUE
|| useClassical
|| (abs(eg_value(pos.psq_score())) > PawnValueMg / 8 && !(pos.this_thread()->nodes & 0xF));
|| (abs(eg_value(pos.psq_score())) > PawnValueMg / 4 && !(pos.this_thread()->nodes & 0xB));
Value v = classical ? Evaluation<NO_TRACE>(pos).value()
: NNUE::evaluate(pos) * 5 / 4 + Tempo;

Expand Down