Author: Amir Ban
Date: 09:37:20 11/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2000 at 06:03:39, Graham Laight wrote: >On November 17, 2000 at 19:24:23, Amir Ban wrote: > >> >>If your criterion of knowledge is based on accuracy of evaluation then I >>respectfully apply for membership in the exclusive "knowledge based" club (and >>IMO some members don't belong there). >> >>BTW, accuracy of evaluation is the best criterion for being knowledgable that >>I'm aware of. I've posted here in the past that, to start with, we don't have a >>real definition of what good evaluation means. This is the focus of my work with >>Junior for more than a year. > >IMHO, a truly accurate evaluation of a position would yield one of the following >3 ordinal values: > >Win >Draw >Lose > >-g > >>Amir I can easily fake evaluation that gives only those values. I suppose that you mean that the values should be true values. How do you propose to do that ? If I have an eval that gives absolutely correct values 60% of the time (and the rest wrong), do you expect my program to be weak or strong ? If I get 70% right, am I necessarily stronger ? The question is, given two evaluation functions, to decide which is more accurate. This is a good question. Your answer does not seem to lead anywhere. Amir
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.