Author: James Swafford
Date: 04:41:42 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. > Optimal play and what you expect to see in your eval vector may be two independent things, if that's what you mean. Vincent was trying to be dramatic with the -3 example. -- James >-- >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.