Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 08:02:16 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2002 at 11:13:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 24, 2002 at 15:38:52, Russell Reagan wrote: > <BIG SNIP> >> >>So basically if a function produces the score for the position, then I consider >>that the evaluation function, so I supposed that an evaluation function that was >>only for a KBN vs K endgame would indeed qualify as an evaluation function. > >but real impossible to realize for most non-programming chessplayers is >the fact that there is a huge difference with the KBN vs K endgame >versus the original question. > >In DIEP the KBN vs K evaluation completely *replaces* the score. > >This where in all the hundreds of evaluation functions, the score is >getting build up to some extend. > >Like majority of code doesn't modify material score, but they add or decrease >something in the score. > >This is true for all engines. Interesting. I feel thats why the modern approach to chess programming never will "solve" the game of chess. One feature of the position can determine the outcome in one and be meaningless in another. And perhaps the positional feature that come into play, just cancel out another meanigfull parameter... As you know it is very difficult to make any general rules for the game of chess. Some works nearly always, some most of the time and some just a few times. Torstein PS Hope I'm wrong...... > >Basically the summation of penalties and patterns make the evaluation >of the position. Only a subset of the score is at most reevaluated in >*some* engines. From which DIEP is one. > >Reevaluating scores is *real* dangerous. Because just a few hard rules >determine then the final evaluation, whereas otherwise thousands of >patterns potentially might correct that value. > >>Russell
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.