Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:28:07 06/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2002 at 13:59:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 04, 2002 at 10:49:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On June 04, 2002 at 08:54:57, José Carlos wrote: >> >>What i read in Dann's words is he is more believing in search >>rather than the knowledge. If that's the case then i think he is >>wrong. > >Chess Tiger shows that search *IS* knowledge. However, it is a different kind >of knowledge. > >There will always be ways to improve the search. There will always be ways to >improve the eval. Both ways are paths to a better program. To give up one >either path forever means that your program is not as good as it could be. > >Optimze the path. Optimize the eval. Optimize the path. Optimize the eval. > >Maybe you are better at optimization of the evaluation function. Quite frankly, >most programmers do not have your chess knowledge. If anything, they should >spend more energy in the search. After all, how can they inject a 2500 ELO >evaluation into their program if they cannot play at 2500? I think that there is a wrong assumption here. You assume that the programmer needs to know the evaluation before programming. It is possible that the programmer may discover ideas about evaluation after watching and analyzing games of her(his) program. I also believe that 2500 players do not know to evaluate in the way that computers evaluate. No 2500 player looks at a position and says: Ne4 is 0.54 pawns for white when a3 is 0.55 pawns for white so I prefer a3. 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.