Author: Amir Ban
Date: 01:27:43 05/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 14:17:51, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 07, 2002 at 07:44:16, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On May 06, 2002 at 18:06:47, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On May 06, 2002 at 15:34:01, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"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"). >>>>> >>>> >>>>Before strongly disagreeing (as I guess I will), what does this mean ? >>>> >>>>If I freeze my search engine and work only to improve the evaluation, how much >>>>do you expect the total strength to improve ? Is it limited ? >>> >>> >>>I expect the strength of your engine to improve, but not much in regard to the >>>energy invested. Because you are going to focus your efforts on an area that >>>does not have the biggest potential in strength. >>> >>>On the other hand people will love it more and more because it will have a much >>>better playing style. >>> >>>People can forgive gross tactical blunders, but not slight positional mistakes. >>>Go figure... >>> >>>Here I'm talking about current top engines of today, naturally. >>> >>>Building a chess engine with a broken evaluation to demonstrate that a better >>>evaluation could improve it tremendously is not in the spirit of my idea. >>> >>> >>> >>>>I understand that you are saying that it will change the style but overall >>>>strength will not be much changed. >>> >>> >>>I do not know exactly how far we will be able to go with the 10% I attribute to >>>positional evaluation. >>> >>>I'm not saying it counts for nothing and that overall strength will not benefit >>>from research in this area. >>> >>>I believe that the positional evaluation is the part of a chess program >>>responsible for only 10% of the strength, and that the rest is done by the >>>search. >>> >>>I believe that the positional evaluation is responsible for most of what people >>>perceive as the "playing style". >>> >>>Now you can strongly disagree, I do not have the absolute truth. >>> >> >>Ok. I think this is wrong. Anyway I'm working for a long time under the >>assumption that it's the evaluation rather than the search that needs work. >> >>The search engine of Junior7 is basically the same as Junior6. >> >>Junior5 was the last engine where I did extensive work on the search. Since then >>in terms of effort it was at least 80% evaluation, no more than 20% search. >> >>Amir > >I wonder how much of it is testing to find the right weights in your evaluation >and how much of it is adding new evaluation functions. > Hard to say because they belong to completely different mental processes. New elements are part of a creative process, which is not something that can be regulated. Adusting and testing is more routine and automatic. There's no reason why they can't take place at the same time. >I find that in the endgame there is knowledge in the evaluation that Junior does >not have when part of the top programs and even part of the amaturs have it. > >Here is one example: > >Junior7 does not know that the following position is a draw > Junior doesn't know about billions of positions that they are draws. I wish I could reduce the number by just 20%. This particular case doesn't seem very important. Amir >[D]k7/8/8/8/p7/P7/PK3B2/8 w - - 0 1 > >Uri
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.