Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:24:33 01/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2002 at 16:39:23, David Rasmussen wrote: >On January 20, 2002 at 14:36:44, Uri Blass wrote: > >> >>but it is still not clear because the other evaluation stuff is important. >> > >Of course the other evaluation stuff is important. I am not suggesting to cancel >all evaluation other than material. I am just saying, instead of having a pawn >be 1 and a knight be 3, and then somewhere in evaluation check if you have >exchanged a knight for three pawns, then you penalize by, say, 0.5, why not just >let the knight have a value of 3.5? I know there are more than one requirement, >which is why it isn't trvial. But there still might be a solution. It is >basically a linear programming problem. I don't say that material values should >cover all sorts of evaluation cases, but material _do_ have values right? And >who says that 1,3,3,5,9 is the Unchangeable Truth? I did not say that 1 3 3 5 9 is the unchangable truth. I said that the numbers are meaningless without more knowledge about the evaluation. 1 3 3 5 9 in a chess program may be eqvivalent to 0.8 3 3 5 9 if you change the piece square tables. 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.