Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 03:12:39 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >What you need to consider is the number of years the programmer has spent >actively working on his program. > >That gives much better figures. I agree 100%. Experience matters a lot. One of the important things experience teaches is what not to do. You don't find the latter anywhere. >"Knowledge" in the sense of positional evaluation (that's what most people think >about when they talk about knowledge) makes for 10% of the strength of a chess >program. > >Chess is 90% about tactics (which is a concept close to "search"). > >Naturally there is also a good deal of chess "knowledge" in a good search, but >it is really different from what most people generally consider to be >"knowledge". These statements somewhat amaze me. I would have thought the most important thing for a chess engine (given an already decent search) is to have a good positional evaluation. Not good in terms of quantity, but good in the terms of being seldom wrong by a large amount. I think my engine lose most games because of severe misevaluations. But I don't think I have an exceptionally good search. -- GCP
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.