Author: leonid
Date: 08:40:26 06/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2000 at 06:41:52, blass uri wrote: >On June 19, 2000 at 00:32:26, leonid wrote: > >>On June 18, 2000 at 19:18:10, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>lenoid, do not call material evaluation "positional." They [basically] have >>>nothing to do with each other. Also, do not refer to evaluations as "partial" or >> >> >>Logic that deel with material echange is for me 100% positional logic. Reason is >>simple - slightest change in position on the chess board lead sooner or later to >>some material lost or gain. If you look into material echange, you look into >>position on it as well. > >People do not use the word positional for material. > >positional evaluation is the part of the evaluation function that is not about >counting material. > >When somebody wins material in game it is called tactics. >Positional understanding is about the value of the not material factors. And why somebody would like to even care about "positional understanding"? Not for the sake to reach somewhere material gain? Don't accuse me to be too materialistic. I am not true capitalist. I hardly have some money on my bank acount. >Positional understanding is important in chess because there are position when >one side has less material but better position. Better position that lead later to some material advantage? If you will look into this through the logic of material echange, you will reach "positional understanding" of this position in a very "natural way". >If you search deep enough you can see that the side with material advantage is >losing but there are cases when you need to see 50 plies forward to see that the >side with material advantage is losing and computers cannot see it by search. If material echange deep 50 plies will reveal something about position, fact is still there - material echange say everything about this position. >A good program must have positional evaluation that tells it in part of the >cases even without search that the side with material advantage is probably >losing. Agree! But this is only because material echange can't see that deep in most places. We must, at least, have some general guide line when we don't know where to go through perfect calculation of material. Those guide lines, that say where to go when we don't know for sure what to do, are called tactics. We are still very much in this domain because our computers are very weak. Before it was even more so. I even presume that "tactic" 20 years ago was even more important that today. Pobably it will become less relevent after the next 20 years as well. Reason for this - material echange say you everything about position and tactics all the time. Question is only: How far it can see? Leonid. >>>"perfect" or "final truth" or "general orientation." These words are extremely >>>confusing because you don't bother to define them, so you are the only person in >>>the world who understands them. Besides, the only word you need is "evaluation." >>>You just write an evaluation function, it returns a number which is the >>>evaluation, and then you're done. It's so extremely simple. No need to talk >>>about it until everybody's confused and exasperated. >>>-Tom ><snipped> >>Agree with you that I must use more "standard wording". I hope that with the >>time I will come to this. > >The problem is that people do not understand you and it is usually not the case >with other people. > >You can explain yourself better even without knowing standard definition by >giving definitions for what do you mean by the words that you use. > >Uri
This page took 0.02 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.