Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:12:09 11/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2000 at 22:10:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On November 27, 2000 at 21:52:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>What I was referring to was playing the right move with a score that is < 0, >>when the move is a _winning_ move. If the program _knows_ it is winning, it >>will have a positive score... If it doesn't know this, it is playing it for >>the wrong reason. > >That's just a question of depth since the score is obviously improving. When a >program is improving its score by chosing the right moves (to a certain extent >as inaccuracy tends to creep in the further you go in the PV), then I consider >it to be the right reason. > >If Nxh6 had been the only correct move in the PV, but the score > 0, then it's a >right move for the wrong reason to me. The score will improve if the PV keeps on >approaching the correct variation. You're doing a TC imitation by staring at the >score IMHO. > >What score would imply "right reason" at depth 11? > >Mogens. I disagree. There have been multiple cases of programs being specifically tuned to play certain moves in test positions. The PV was "close" but missed the important move that made the score _really_ improve. Whether that happened in this case or not, I have no idea. But when someone says "white to play and _win_" and the program plays the right move but with a score that says "if I could find a repetition I would take it in a heartbeat" then I remain skeptical of its ability to really understand what is going on. And suspect it is very likely that it may well go wrong...
This page took 0.02 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.