Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 03:12:46 08/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 2002 at 05:32:11, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 05, 2002 at 19:45:57, James Swafford wrote: > >>On August 05, 2002 at 18:01:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 05, 2002 at 17:58:16, James Swafford wrote: >>> >>>this is in my alltime CCC posting. >>> >>>If a value from +3 goes to -3 then that's the most absurd thing >>>which can happen. >> >>Of course, if you're implying -3 means "it's good to get rid of >>the bishop" or some other similar nonsense. But the point is >>that moves are more important than eval term weights. >> >>Surely you agree... (?) > >You're presenting it as if they are two independent things, which is >surely not true. The idea is to give the computer free hands to optimize in whatever way results in the most profitable play. Vincent gave an example where it was too agressive giving a piece for 2 pawns and a check. My guess is, that this over-agressive (patzer) play does result in better overall score for the program. Yes it will be destroyed from time to time, but if there is still a net gain, then that is what the algorithm will aim for. IMO it is possible to correct this by simply giving it the right opponents while it trains, it must be punished for being over-agressive. -S. >-- >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.