Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 16:30:28 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 19:08:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 25, 2000 at 18:57:44, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >[snip] >>Throwing away what information? Ideally, chess positions are evaluated to one of >>three values. If you have any more information than that, you can be sure it's >>flawed. > >Really? You only score positions as +/-/0? >Then how do you choose one when there are more than a single positive >alternative? I didn't say that I only score positions as +/-/0. That would be ideal, but it's just not practical. I use a flawed evaluation function, just like everybody else. :) > >>If I aim to duplicate Crafty's evaluation function scores, then I will end up >>recreating Crafty's evaluation function. That's not my intention. > >I think you will find that for a given depth of evaluation, correct evaluation >functions generally agree to within a pawn or better. > >>I would like to be able to tweak one of my evaluation function weights and see >>if it helps the function predict the outcome of the game better. > >If your evaluation function misses the mark by several pawns, it won't help >predict the outcome of the game better. If my evaluation function gave positive scores to winning positions, it would win all of its games, period. If the positive scores were random, it would probably win in stupid ways, but it would still win. -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.