Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 05:12:30 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2000 at 07:49:57, blass uri wrote: >On July 22, 2000 at 07:13:40, Ralf Elvsén wrote: > >>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). > >There are cases that I am better in evaluating king attacks but not always. >I remember a case when I avoided a move because I was afraid of king safety >problems. > >I analyzed the position with programs after the game and found that they were >not afraid of the problem and they were right and I simply overestimated the >opponent's chances against my king. > >It is not clear to me that my static evaluation is better. > >Uri I think that if a club player could assign scored to positions at the same rate as a program and then have the tree searched by the alpha-beta algorithm, this "cyborg" would kill anything else. Ralf
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.