Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:52:19 11/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2002 at 20:13:43, Bob Durrett wrote: [snip] >I guess I don't know exactly what the definition of the word "algorithm" is in >this context. I thought that position evaluation was done by a software >implementation of a "position evaluation algorithm." The changes to the position evaluation algorithm will be O(1). If you have to do 100 operations or something, it is still a fixed constant rate. The dumbest (still somewhat correct) evaluation algorithm would just count the piece value totals. A smarter one might know pawn formations. We can add king safety, bad bishops, space control, etc. to make it smarter. A program with an evalution that knows only the piece values and how to sum them will play pitiful chess. [snip] >>I don't think that programs grow the way that people do. I do think that >>programs grow in whatever direction the programmer wants. He may explore new >>algorithms or new evaluation terms or many other avenues. > >Sort of like a "test bed"? That is one tool to help accomplish the goal. The thought is you might explore new ways to do move ordering. You might explore new evaluation ideas. You might explore pruning ideas. You get to choose what you think is interesting and go from there. >>>Incidentally, when I talk about program maturity, I am not talking about >>>programmer maturity. Those are two different topics. >> >>I would add that programmer maturity may or may not affect programming skill. >> >>>How about that? >> >>I don't understand the question. > >I am asking you whether or not you think I am making any progress in making my >perceptions match up with reality, insofar as our topic is concerned. Probably, but it is hard for me to know.
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.