Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 15:12:08 05/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 13:35:12, Christophe Theron wrote: >On May 07, 2002 at 07:44:16, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On May 06, 2002 at 18:06:47, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On May 06, 2002 at 15:34:01, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Knowledge" in the sense of positional evaluation (that's what most people think >>>>>about when they talk about knowledge) makes for 10% of the strength of a chess >>>>>program. >>>>> >>>>>Chess is 90% about tactics (which is a concept close to "search"). >>>>> >>>> >>>>Before strongly disagreeing (as I guess I will), what does this mean ? >>>> >>>>If I freeze my search engine and work only to improve the evaluation, how much >>>>do you expect the total strength to improve ? Is it limited ? >>> >>> >>>I expect the strength of your engine to improve, but not much in regard to the >>>energy invested. Because you are going to focus your efforts on an area that >>>does not have the biggest potential in strength. >>> >>>On the other hand people will love it more and more because it will have a much >>>better playing style. >>> >>>People can forgive gross tactical blunders, but not slight positional mistakes. >>>Go figure... >>> >>>Here I'm talking about current top engines of today, naturally. >>> >>>Building a chess engine with a broken evaluation to demonstrate that a better >>>evaluation could improve it tremendously is not in the spirit of my idea. >>> >>> >>> >>>>I understand that you are saying that it will change the style but overall >>>>strength will not be much changed. >>> >>> >>>I do not know exactly how far we will be able to go with the 10% I attribute to >>>positional evaluation. >>> >>>I'm not saying it counts for nothing and that overall strength will not benefit >>>from research in this area. >>> >>>I believe that the positional evaluation is the part of a chess program >>>responsible for only 10% of the strength, and that the rest is done by the >>>search. >>> >>>I believe that the positional evaluation is responsible for most of what people >>>perceive as the "playing style". >>> >>>Now you can strongly disagree, I do not have the absolute truth. >>> >> >>Ok. I think this is wrong. Anyway I'm working for a long time under the >>assumption that it's the evaluation rather than the search that needs work. >> >>The search engine of Junior7 is basically the same as Junior6. >> >>Junior5 was the last engine where I did extensive work on the search. Since then >>in terms of effort it was at least 80% evaluation, no more than 20% search. >> >>Amir > > > >Then your work is a real success. That makes a lot of elo points gained from >working almost exclusively on the evaluation. > >How much in your opinion? As Junior 7 is 93 elo points stronger than Junior 5 on >K6-450 (with the usual error margin, of course), how much would you say come >from your work on the evaluation? 60? 70? 80?? > >I wouldn't have believed that it is possible, but obviously it is. > >I guess that the fact that you have a strong chess player in the team has an >influence on the choice to work more on the evaluation, right? > > > > Christophe I don't know why Amir hasn't answered your post...maybe he's not had the time. However, I found both your arguements interesting, and maybe Christophe you can find something the comes closer to the truth!;) Regardless both areas are worth exploring further...now get a GM on your team!:o) After Tiger 15, Tiger 16 will be a Monster! Terry
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.