Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:35:06 05/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2000 at 18:01:45, Pete R. wrote: >I agree, and forgive my ignorance, but isn't this largely a matter of evaluation >tuning? It's impossible to see tactically the consequences of these kingside >pawn advances until it's too late, so this has to be compensated by positional >evaluation just as a human does. Any human player can look at the late >positions and conclude that black has no counterplay as a direct result of >white's annexation of kingside space. I'm not saying this would be easy to >program, but in theory a perfect evaluation function would have the computer >*appearing* to play according to planning, and thwarting the planning of its >opponent. No? And isn't pawn structure a major part of eval functions? Such >things are beyond tactical evaluation, but modern programs obviously still have >a hard time seeing that white can create such a favorable structure within a few >moves. Once the tactical realizations sink in it's far too late. Pawn structure >patterns are easy for us humans to evaluate, but obviously this is still a >computer eval problem. No matter what you do you can still get brutally smashed. It is possible for a human to reach a position where the computer has no counterplay and just turn the screws until the computer is dead. There are other ways it can happen, but this one was a good example of a common way. It is very embarassing to be on the computer side in a game like that, and I'm trying to defend Frans. My own thing has played games like this, and so has everyone else's. It's a failure of long-term planning. Computers are great at short-term planning, and they fake the long-term planning. All of them do. Sometimes their shortcomings are exposed. bruce
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.