Author: Albert Silver
Date: 17:13:02 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
I meant to say it though Christophe beat me to it: I found it to be a
fascinating post as well. I don't think you should presume Bob is ignorant (does
not know/has never heard of) of what you layed out though.
Not being of the field, I found it quite enlightening but I had a few
doubts as well. I am not certain you can simply present certain patterns that
are precise enough to be useful but necessarily vague to cover enough situations
(so as to be practical), and proclaim it is worth a piece. No doubt such
patterns, if well done, can be of immense value, but beyond weighting it
sufficiently to 'direct' the program's attention, I would find it hard to
attribute much higher values. I would think there are probably more cases where
that long term piece sac was really forever. As for non-symmetric weighting,
isn't that rather double-edged? I mean, do you want your program to understand
(with the proper weights) about attacking, but nothing about being attacked? In
a double-edged position, such a program would always be wildly optimistic as it
would only take into account its possibilities but not its opponent's. Or am I
missing something?
Albert
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.