Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:02:04 11/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2000 at 09:05:15, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On November 24, 2000 at 02:47:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 23, 2000 at 19:06:29, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>On November 23, 2000 at 16:10:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On November 23, 2000 at 12:33:12, Peter Fendrich wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 22, 2000 at 12:10:18, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>> > >-- snip -- >>The reason is simply for analysis of correspondence games. >> >>I generate a small tree of moves and I want to use the evaluations after search >>in the leaves of the tree to decide about my move. >> >>If I use a preprocessor I cannot compare between the evaluation in different >>leaves because they are based on different tables. >> >>If I do not use a preprocessor I can do it. >> >>Uri > >In that case I think you definition is perfectly allright. >Even small gradually changes between rootnodes will give >different evaluations, not comparable beteween rootnodes. >Terra is preprocessing! >Another thought: These numbers can't be of much value in corr. games. I mean the >positional/strategic knowledge in chess programs isn't much to rely on. I think that the positional knowledge of myself is also not much to rely on. If I think that the evaluation of programs is wrong then I try to generate the tree that is going to convince the program that it is wrong. If I fail to generate the relevant tree then probably my evaluation is the wrong one. >When material is the difference however, then the preprocessing has no impact >anyway. I think that there are cases when the evaluation is changed by a pawn because of preprocessing so preprocessing may influence also in this case. Uri
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.