Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:24:50 03/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2001 at 23:53:41, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On March 16, 2001 at 12:22:34, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote: > >> http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~abb97/ > >This paper starts out with a vague introduction to static evaluation. A lot of >what he says seems true to me, but he doesn't footnote and he makes a few >conclusions that seem to come from thin air. > >He says that a static eval is named because it evaluates states. I hadn't >realized this. I thought that "static" in this case meant that pieces don't >move in a static eval -- they are static, which means "not moving". But I don't >know -- I didn't read it anywhere -- and he doesn't footnote his assertion. > I believe _your_ definition is correct. The term comes from AI and does, in fact, mean "not moving" or "unchanging". It comes from the idea that pieces are evaluated where they sit, without regard for what action they _might_ take in the future (the tree search is supposed to handle this). >He then kicks into high gear with a section that suggests that the evaluation >can be improved by determining more complicated relationships between pieces, in >an effort to increase the level of "mathematics" involved. He uses a lot of >jargon and gives no specifics about anything, although there are a few example >positions chosen that show that pieces do attack and defend each other on a >chess board, and that it's possible to define checkmate by using intersections >of attacked squares. > >It's not always possible, by the way. Sometimes it is possible to be checkmated >even when the king can reach squares that are not currently attacked. I leave >the specifics unstated in case someone wants to write a paper about this. > >bruce
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.