Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:48:50 12/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2001 at 05:03:18, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On December 29, 2001 at 01:24:38, Uri Blass wrote: > >>Ignoring tactics also does not seem to be a good idea because if there is a good >>chance that tactical tricks are going to work then it should be considered in >>the evaluation. > >No. Not unless you have tactical terms in your eval function. Otherwise you will >just be changing weights at random. I believe that even if the evaluation is only piece square table evaluation there are tactical tricks that happen mainly in some situation(for example white knight at a8 is often bad). It is not always the case but the evaluation is not supposed to know everything but to guess and a better guess should say that it is bad and reduce the score of white if white has a knight at a8. I cannot prevent a guess to be wrong if I have not enough knowledge but I can care that the guess will be wrong equally to both sides. I also said that we should not use pawns to evaluate how much a guess is wrong and there is no big difference if the guess is wrong by 5 pawns or by 6 pawns. We should try to translate the pawns to expected result. > >>It can be useful because a team of some hundreds of people may waste only one >>year. > >All coefficient optimization algorithms depend on a way to measure the quality >of a set of coefficients. How do you propose to do this? I don't think a test >set of any reasonable size can do this. This is your opinion. I am not sure about it. The question is also what is a reasonable size. Are 100000 positions a reasonable size? Note that simple calculation say that you may need 100000 games to check if a small change is really an improvement of 1 elo and analyzing 100000 positions when every position analyzed for few minutes is clearly faster than playing 100000 games. Note that you do not have to optimize all the coefficients and if there are not enough positions when white has a knight at b8 then you can decide that optimizing for this coefficient is not important so you may ignore it. 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.