Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:03:22 03/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2004 at 18:52:52, Jay Scott wrote: >On March 28, 2004 at 16:18:41, Artem Pyatakov wrote: > >>in my opinion, the field of >>computer chess has become obsessed with *tricks* (human-generated ideas that >>happened to work without a good theoretical justification and cannot be easily >>generalized to other games). Because these tricks work really really well, the >>field has strayed from research into A.I. techniques. At the same time, any AI >>work has to compare itself with chess engine filled with excellent >>human-generated tricks, so it seems to perform poorly. > >I largely agree, though there's plenty of room for quibbling. > >Chess programmers, I've found, are remarkably resistant to changing how they do >certain traditional things. For example, every time I propose calibrating >evaluation not in millipawns but by some standard with a sounder theoretical >motivation, I'm shouted down by everyone who does not ignore me. I don't >understand that. I do not know what you mean but if you mean to evaluation in terms of expected result then I am not against evaluation not by pawns but by expected result. The problem is that it is not easy for human to think about defining the evaluation when it is in terms of expected result. 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.