Author: Graham Laight
Date: 11:49:23 01/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2002 at 13:23:14, Ricardo Gibert 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 > >knowing the probability of winning is not enough (or necessary), you must also >have some type of rough distance information (this is necessary), otherwise, you >will not be able to differentiate between a quick 100% win and a slower 100% >one. This is a good point. However, it also applies to the prevailing "pawn" scoring system. :) >Consider this: You're pushing an obvious idea, that occurs to practically >everyone that writes a program. Now why don't programs use it? Hmmm. Sorry - I didn't intend to imply that everyone should rewrite their programs this way. It was more a case of thinking out loud, really. I'm glad I did - the ensuing discussion has made for an interesting read! -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.