Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:05:30 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 15:42:43, Ulrich Tuerke wrote:
>This "2nd order evaluation" stuff is not as sensational as you may think,
>Fernando.
>Any program, using more than just piece square tables, has 2nd order terms. For
>instance giving a bonus for a knight occupying an opponent's weak square is a
>2nd order term, because the weak square is a consequnce of the pawn structure.
>Is there a program which does not account for a knight forepost ?
I did not claim that what I am doing here is sensational or unique.
I was just explaning the general principle to Fernando and gave my opinion about
the huge fluctuations.
>IMHO, these large fluctuations in score which you have observed, are just a
>consequence of using rather large values in the static evaluation function. Any
>program giving large values for king safety, passed pawns, ... shows these
>effects. Even mine, but I'm not always completely happy with it.
>
>After all, I'm also curious to test the Gambit Tiger because I find it always
>intersting to play these kind of programs with kind of speculative evaluations.
>And it seems that Chris had a very lucky and skilful hand for this, because
>Tiger is successful in spite of this speculative eval.
>
>Just my opinion, may of course be completely wrong.
You are right overall.
Christophe
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.