Author: leonid
Date: 16:40:49 06/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2000 at 13:37:16, Tom Kerrigan 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. > >Chess programmers need to differentiate between counting material and >calculating other positional terms. So we use the words "material" for counting >material and "positional" for everything else. If you want to be understood on >this forum, you need to use these words too, regardless of whether or not they >make sense. > >>>"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 >> >>Agree with you that I must use more "standard wording". I hope that with the >>time I will come to this. Already I know what is the "ply", "effective branching >>factor" and few other expressions. Some will come to me later. But finally, Tom, >>we are not in Academy of Science. Chess Club is something like a forum in >>ancient Greece. Place where prominent people and ordinary populace can mix >>together and talk to each other in some simple way. > >Right, but you're not talking in "some simple way." You come in here using terms >that you invent and expect people to understand them simply because you put >quotes around them. It just doesn't work. I have no idea what you're trying to >communicate 90% of the time, and I'd be surprised if anybody else on this forum >is doing any better. > >-Tom Will try to be more careful. Thanks! Leonid.
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.