Stockfish removes classical evaluation

[amchess]

The point of the discussion is that if the Stockfish people are only aiming at pure playing strength, they should eliminate the use of the UCI_Elo option with the current handicap mode which...serves no purpose.
The sparring partner, then, must be not only less strong than Stockfish base, but with an adjustable elo: Carlsen does not do anything with a weaker engine if he does not know how much weaker it is.
In helping flesh-and-blood players with programming, We have a lot of fun!

I don't care if Stockfish has removed the classical evaluation function.

Then what is the point of the discussion?

This is not a complaint, but just a bitter realization: the vast majority of chess programmers are only competing to see "who has the longest one" and are not remotely interested in improving the human player. Even Magnus Carlsen, with an Elo rating of around 2850, how can he progress by competing against an alien with a 3500 Elo rating?

If Magnus wants a weaker opponent, then there are plenty of chess engines that will suit his needs, including older versions of Stockfish.

The point of improving SF is indeed to improve SF.

Therefore, ShashChess will continue to preserve the classical evaluation function for this purpose only.

I do not think anyone will criticise you for that decision.

I fully agree that there is room for weaker engines and for more customisable engines. It is just not the goal of Stockfish to be that engine.

Moreover, I don't even enjoy programming anymore, since nnue is flattening the maximum playing strength and reaching a saturation bottleneck. However, a lot can be done at the educational level, and that's the direction I'm heading in.

Time to look for a different hobby.

[syzygy]

The point of the discussion is that if the Stockfish people are only aiming at pure playing strength, they should eliminate the use of the UCI_Elo option with the current handicap mode which...serves no purpose.

I agree that UCI_Elo could be a candidate for removal.

Still, UCI_Elo is a limited amount of code not requiring much maintenance, whereas the classical eval is a lot of code. So I can see that there was more reason to remove the classical evaluation.

In end this was a judgement call by the SF maintainer(s). It is fine to disagree with it, but I think it is a bit unfair to criticise the judgement call by invoking "who has the longest one" type arguments. This is a hobby, and everyone should do what they like best.

I suppose the removal of the classical eval was somewhat bitter for the SF developers who have worked hard on improving it. But at the same time it is difficult to justify spending fishtest resources on it if it does not improve SF's strength.

In helping flesh-and-blood players with programming, We have a lot of fun!

And that is great!!

I do hope you will continue to enjoy this hobby.
Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my comments.

[amchess]

No problem

[Jouni]

It's back:

Author: Stéphane Nicolet
Date: Sun Sep 3 09:28:16 2023 +0200
Timestamp: 1693726096

Introduce simple_eval() for lazy evaluations

This patch implements the pure materialistic evaluation called simple_eval()
to gain a speed-up during Stockfish search.

Main reason for sudden ELO gain?

[Guenther]

It's back:

No.
You just don't understand the meaning of this patch, nor his content.

Author: Stéphane Nicolet
Date: Sun Sep 3 09:28:16 2023 +0200
Timestamp: 1693726096

Introduce simple_eval() for lazy evaluations

This patch implements the pure materialistic evaluation called simple_eval()
to gain a speed-up during Stockfish search.

Main reason for sudden ELO gain?