Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 18:23:54 11/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2000 at 12:37:20, Amir Ban wrote: >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 With 100% correct evaluations of just win, lose or draw, can a program mate in K + R vs K? I think it will just wander around unless mate happens to fall within the program search horizon. Yes?
This page took 0.01 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.