Author: Graham Laight
Date: 05:09:58 01/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2002 at 07:49:25, Albert Silver wrote: >On January 16, 2002 at 07:41:28, Graham Laight wrote: > >>It has occurred to me that it is wrong to evaluate a position in terms of >>relative pawns (the "de facto" standard - whereby an evaluation of 2 means that >>you're approximately the equivalent of 2 pawns ahead). >> >>This means that many aspects of evaluation have to be squeezed into a dimension >>which is not appropriate at all. >> >>A better way would be to evaluate "winning probability". If a position was a >>draw, the value would be 0.50 (or 50%). If the player should win 3 out of 4 >>times, the eval should be 75%. If the player must win from here, then the >>evaluation should be 100%. >> >>It seems strange when you think about it that all programmers have chosen to >>adopt the traditional "pawn equivalence" standard. >> >>-g > >Not so strange considering that chess is a game of absolutes, whether we know >them or not. A positions is either a win (with best play), a draw, or a loss. >How are you going to estimate how many times a player _should_ win? --> > >Hmmm... Normally, I'd say John is going to win this, but having seen him drink 5 >beers during lunch shortly before the game, I'd say he only has a 60% chance.... >:-) > > Albert I don't say that the evaluations would be more "accurate" - but I do say that the number produced, accurate or not, would be on a more sensible scale. -g
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.