Author: Herman Hesse
Date: 02:47:18 07/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 1999 at 15:46:34, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On July 29, 1999 at 15:29:20, KarinsDad wrote:
>>On July 29, 1999 at 14:57:36, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>Here is the entire quotation from Amir:
>>>"A correct evaluation is one that matches the winning percentages of the
>>>position. I think white has about 54% in serious play, and if so the evaluation
>>>should be about +0.20."
>>>
>>>I disagree that winning percentage is the correct and only variable to map to
>>>centipawn evaluation.
>>
>>Yes, as winning percentages are limited to the skill of the players involved
>>whereas a correct evaluation of a position (if it was perfectly done) would be
>>based on the possibilities of the position and not upon what some players may or
>>may not be able to accomplish with the position.
>With complete information, either technique works. Even with such a technique,
>a normal ce approach is better.
>For instance, if I have every game possible in an imaginary database, I can
>calculate the "real" win/loss/draw value of a starting position. However, many
>games {probably 99.9999999999999999999%) would be idiotic. Hence, the true
>value in actual play against top level opponents would be masked.
>On the other hand, we could filter the book to include only the best choices at
>each junction, forming a game tree as it were.
>In such a case, we would end up with conventional ce's by simply scanning the
>leaves of the tree.
>Similarly, we could exhausively search each position with an 'ideal' computer
>clear to the end {win/loss/draw}. If we stored each of these into a database,
>we would form the same game tree mentioned above.
>
>Both ideas have merit {human choices/computer choices -- not the
>gedankenexperiment above...}. Computers perform tactical evaluations of
>position. They are better at that aspect than humans are. Humans form
>strategic evaluations of position. They are much better at it than computers
>are. So, if we consider both values (human evaluation/computer evaluation) we
>will have the best of both worlds.
Maybe I lack the words for this. It is a feeling. The pair of you appear to
always reduce potential senseful threads to a common denominator below which no
expert wishes to go. It is as if you use, together, because you are often
together, many words to say almost nothing at all. On-topic but devoid of
content.
Herman
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.