Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 04:13:40 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2000 at 06:05:00, blass uri wrote: > >It is not clear that programs are better than me in static evaluation in games >but the opposite is also not clear and I believe that the evaluation of >programs is more comlicated than the evaluation of humans even if it is not >better. The evaluation of programs maybe consider more factors on average than humans. But humans have an ability to concentrate better on the important things in a position. If there is a kingside attack you don't care about overall pawn structure. You concentrate on tactics and king safety and try to refine that part of the evaluation. And in other positions it's the other way around. To code that ability to concentrate on the important things would be extremely hard, I think, and this is a part of the evaluation function that in programs is essentially blank. Suggestion: look at e.g. Crafty's evaluation. Then think about what you do yourself. I would be surprised if you still would think Crafty's evaluation is more complicated, or better for that matter. (I'm talking about static eval of course). Ralf > >I think that humans are better than programs in learning from search about the >evaluation(fortress positions that they did not see in the past are good >example because humans learn from the fact that they cannot get >progress that the position is a draw). > >The best players are also better in pruning illogical lines(weaker players also >prune logical lines). > > >Uri
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.