Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 15:06:36 01/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2002 at 17:50:46, Dan Andersson wrote: >One reason that search is discussed so much is, IMO. That the static scores of >evaluators are 'always' wrong. It means that an efficient and intelligent search >(including extensions) will trumph a less efficient search allmost all the time. >Due to the fact that the search essentially 'mines' the search space for a more >accurate evaluation. A much better approach is to tailor your evaluator to your >search. Granted that a good evaluator is preferable to a bad one. But making it >behave consistently inside your search framework is the number one priority. But >discussions of evaluation factors are always good. As for good/bad bishops a >dynamically computed piece square table is an option. And not all that expensive >if you hash it, or make an 'el cheapo' function. The bishop might not be bad if >it occupies an active square. Or it might be very bad in an open position if it >is acting as a blockading piece for a pawn. > >MvH Dan Andersson So you think all the top programs are better searchers than others, not better evaluators? I think that the best searcher in the world with an average evaluation function will lose to slightly worse searchers with better evaluation. That's too general a statement, but still. When top programs are playing eachother, or when top programs are playing GM's, at some point there might be a tactical blunder on the losing side, but in general, the side that is better positionally wins. I don't think it is common with such players, that the better searcher wins the game on tactics, in an inferior position. At any rate, programs are seldom beaten on tactics by humans, or slower searchers, they are beaten on positional knowledge. And of course positional knowledge in an evaluation function is "subjective". I can't just say "Hey, Christophe! Give me bonus for a rook on an open square, and I'll use that!". But I can ask him about clever higher-order evaluation terms for king attacks and king safety. Those might easily make a program much stronger. /David
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.