Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 19:13:35 11/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2000 at 21:23:54, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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? Yep, it would wander around until it lucked into a mate or until the "threat" of a draw by the 50-move rule forced it to play a mating line. --Peter
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.