Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 20:33:35 05/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2002 at 19:31:50, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On May 08, 2002 at 04:27:43, Amir Ban wrote: > >>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. > >Strange as it may seem, but in my experience this ending comes up quite >frequently. Of course frequently is a relative term, but I have seen it a >number of times while watching programs play on ICC. > >One time, I was discussing this particular ending with Peter Kappler and bang, >it occurred in a game one of us was observing!! > >Peter > The reason we were talking about it is that I had *just* added that knowledge to Grok earlier that evening, and we were wondering how long I'd have to wait to see that endgame occur. Answer: one game! :) -Peter >> >>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.