Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:49:09 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2002 at 15:13:14, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 23, 2002 at 13:53:34, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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. > >To be honest, I think your reasoning is a bit weird ;) > >>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. > >Well, that is what an evaluation is supposed to do, it's up to the search to >choose the whether or not to do the castle based on the alternatives >investigated in the search tree :) >I don't think I understand your objection to this, you can't evaluate 100% >accurate, its a sum of terms leading to an overall score, that is how >evaluations work AFAIK. If you think eg. an open file towards your king is very >bad, you can always give that a huge penalty. > >>If the king is safe only in the king side then >>I care if I can castle there but not about average of evauations. > >I don't follow. > >> >>Uri I would add that "a weighted linear combination" is not "an average"...
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.