Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 10:43:24 01/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2002 at 13:16:37, Dan Andersson wrote: >Some hefty ply depths you are mentioning. I happen to agree in principle with >them. But do you really think a program would survive if it searched eight ply >less? Just joking:) The problem is that even the best evaluation available today >is 'always' wrong, it will asses the static features but will have no clue of >the future of the position. Thus missing the mark more often than not. The real >mystery here is that current chess programs manage so well in the first place. No, they do not manage so well. To me, the real discovery of computer chess was to find that humans manage so bad! :-) There are so many holes in the short tactics of humans that computer take advantage of those. Until last decade, we thought that humans had better tactical ability. They don't! That's just my opinion. An another thing is that they look quite well because the evaluation is not that bad as you say. At least in relative terms. The absolute value of the position after 1.e4 might be wrong but as long as it is higher than 1.h4 1.e4 will be played. In that respect the evaluation functions are not very bad, IMHO. Regards, Miguel >Well, it's really no mystery but surprising none the less. > >MvH Dan Andersson
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.