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

Server analysis could use cloud analysis in the opening #3758

Closed
Yery opened this issue Oct 30, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Server analysis could use cloud analysis in the opening #3758

Yery opened this issue Oct 30, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@Yery
Copy link

Yery commented Oct 30, 2017

Currently, when a server analysis is requested, all moves are analysed, including the opening. The opening however, could be queried from the cloud, which has a much deeper analysis. So the suggestion is, whenever a (deeper) cloudanalysis is available, to use that one, instead of a (redundant) shallower reanalysis. This would save time, and should save a bit on the electricity bill too!

@ornicar
Copy link
Collaborator

ornicar commented Oct 30, 2017

What do you think @niklasf?

ATM cloud analysis doesn't have an HTTP API, but it could be added.

@niklasf
Copy link
Member

niklasf commented Nov 15, 2017

Architecturally it seems a bit wierd to let fishnet query an HTTP API. Instead lila could add information from its own database.

@ornicar
Copy link
Collaborator

ornicar commented Nov 24, 2017

It also seems weird to send analysis to fishnet. Also it's hard to just tell fishnet "don't analyse these positions, I got them already" because by the time fishnet completes the analysis, the cloud eval entry could be gone (they expire if unused). Actually nevermind that, using a cloud eval entry like that could also prevent expiration.

So lichess could add to the fishnet payload a list of plies that need not be analyzed.

@ornicar
Copy link
Collaborator

ornicar commented Nov 24, 2017

For now I'll just monitor how many positions are affected.

@ornicar
Copy link
Collaborator

ornicar commented Dec 6, 2017

Turned out this change results in 13% less work for the same result, so it was deployed

@ornicar ornicar closed this as completed Dec 6, 2017
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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants