Skip to content
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.

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

Don't print fail-high or fail-lows in MultiPV mode #217

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

zamar
Copy link

@zamar zamar commented Jan 17, 2015

Supposed to give a better user experience when using MultiPV mode

No functional change

Supposed to give a better user experience when using MultiPV mode

No functional change
@zamar zamar mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2015
@mcostalba
Copy link

The only advantage of this patch (but is a big advantage) compared to Gary's one is that this is much simpler.

Being both ugly (and useless) hacks, of course the preference goes to the less invasive of the 2 (as is always the general rule with hacks).

Of course the real solution is to consciously choose between only correct PV (leave as is), or always show something (revert to 'retrieve from TT').

@zamar
Copy link
Author

zamar commented Jan 18, 2015

Here we are not showing any wrong information to the user...

We just wait that all fail-highs and fail-lows are resolved, and only after that update the score. I think that in multiPV mode this is acceptable as we've already taken a performance hit of 100-200 ELO points anyway...

My preference (I'm thinking from scientific perspective) would be to leave the output as it is.
However from practical perspective most GUIs do not seem to cope well with it, here we modify the output so that GUIs can actually interpret and show it better.

@zamar
Copy link
Author

zamar commented Jan 18, 2015

Gary said that he is fine with this patch, so I plan to commit before freeze.

If something turns out to be badly wrong with the change, the patch can easily be reverted during the freeze

@glinscott
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I think this is a good compromise.

niklasf pushed a commit to niklasf/Stockfish that referenced this pull request Jan 19, 2017
Use lazy evaluation only for standard chess
MichaelB7 pushed a commit to MichaelB7/Stockfish that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants