Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:22:44 05/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
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. Heyyy.... we agree on something... I think that small missing pieces of knowledge can totally sink a great program. IE trading into simple draws from won positions. And of course, king safety and pawn structure both come to mind as something that search is _not_ going to take care of... > >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 > > >> >> >> Christophe
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.