Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 12:18:29 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 14:49:59, Gordon Rattray wrote: >No. For many positions, it is difficult to evaluate them correctly. It is >anything but straightforward. It is common for humans/computers to play towards >a certain position, only to find that they had incorrectly evaluated it. For >example, playing for an attack or an endgame position that isn't as good as it >appeared from afar. Exactly. The example of the attack is perfect to explain my point : Only after the calculus of "all" the possible variations you can decide which is the best move to play. >>King safety , doubled pawns , open files ,center domination etc. don't require a >>special effort to be evaluated. The major effort goes into calculus of >>variations, since IMO the evaluation of the goodness of the position is easily >>understood (by the computers too). > >Easily understood? You should either play for the world championship and/or >start writing a chess program if you think that positional evaluation is >straighforward... ;-) Why do you think that programmers keep adding more and >more knowledge instead of just trying to get their programs to calculate deeper? > >Gordon > That's not exact, since the effort of the programmers IMO are also in efficient search and propagation algorithms . They aren't focused only in the improving of the eval function that is obviously of key importance. What I meant is that the main concepts behind the eval are known , there is nothing special about that : king safety and so on... The main power of programs against the human beings is to outplay the human players in deep calculations. Regards
This page took 0.01 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.