Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:53:34 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2002 at 12:46:44, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 23, 2002 at 11:48:02, Uri Blass wrote: >problem. >> >>The evaluation of the top programs of today is better relative to the evaluation >>of some years ago. >> >>Uri > >I think Deep Blue had a lot of knowledge compared to the micros of 1997. > >It evaluated: >*) concepts such as square control >*) pins >*) x-rays >*) king safety >*) pawn structure >*) passed pawn >*) ray control >*) outposts >*) pawn majority >*) rook on 7th >*) blockade >*) restraint >*) color complex >*) trapped pieces >*) development >*) and so on... > >Example of kingsafety: >"Before the king castles, the system computes three king safety evaluations, one >for king-side castling, one for queen-side castling and the base value for >staying in the center. Each of these king safety evaluations takes into account >the types of pieces attacking, the soundness of the king's shelter, presence of >attacking pawns, color complex around the king, and os on. The final king safety >evaluation is a weighted linear combination of the three king safety >evaluations." > >-S. Having more complex evaluation does not mean having a better evaluation. It may mean that there is more danger of bugs so you may have worse evlauation. I also believe that linear combination of three king safety evaluations is not a good idea. If the king is safe only in the center then I do not care about the exact king safety in the king side or the queen side because I am not going to go to there. If the king is safe only in the king side then I care if I can castle there but not about average of evauations. 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.