Author: leonid
Date: 13:16:47 06/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2000 at 13:27:03, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 21, 2000 at 21:18:07, leonid wrote: > >>On June 21, 2000 at 19:03:40, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2000 at 17:07:06, leonid wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 2000 at 13:38:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>If you think that material-only evaluation programs are good for anything, >>>>>you're sadly mistaken. >>>> >>>> >>>>I said only that material evaluation is evaluation about everything in principe. >>>>About tactics... or just say it. I agree that in actual state of hardware it is >>>>not enough have only material evaluation, but its importance will grow as >>>>rapidly as hardware capacity will improve. Very soon program that have in its >>> >>>Only evaluating material has zero importance. Why would you do it when you can >>>evaluate material AND positional terms with no penalty? Besides, material is >>>just a rule of thumb, just like any positional term. Thinking that you can make >>>a good program by only considering material is absurd, no matter how fast your >>>computer is. >>>-Tom >> >>Do we speak about my program or about general idea? If we speak about my program >>it is not that interesting, since we will talk only about one program in >>particular. When we speak about general idea, yes, material echange can say >>everything. Only through the material echange you can find mate or draw. By the Was written in the sense: Only using material echange you can already find mate or draw. Leonid. >>same mean you can find all other move in the game, name it positional, tactical >>or otherwise. We can talk how much computer power we need for the best program >>right now to find this or other kind of move, but this is something else. Idea >>is simple - material echange do everything and everywhere. In chess game logic >>is enough to see everything in it from beginning up to the end. > >No, you're not listening. "Material exchange" (why can't you call it >material-only search or something?) is not the only way to find mates or draws. >In fact, you don't need to know a damn thing about material to find mates or >draws. That's my point. As soon as you start evaluating material, why wouldn't >you also evaluate e.g. doubled pawns at the same time? > >-Tom
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.