Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:03:53 07/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2002 at 05:20:46, Christophe Drieu wrote: >On July 31, 2002 at 04:43:51, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 31, 2002 at 02:14:50, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>Has anyone done any experiments where they took a simple program and computed >>>ratings for different levels of search? I was thinking it might be interesting >>>to do this experiment, but I figured if someone has done this before it would >>>save me the trouble. >>> >>>I was thinking about creating a simple alpha-beta engine with mainly material >>>evaluation, and perhaps some other small things like a piece-square table, and >>>maybe a bonus for castling. That would seem to help the program do things that >>>even beginners do, if for no other reason than they were taught to "control the >>>center" and "castle early". The main reason for adding those two things would be >>>so the program wouldn't be deciding on 1. h3 just because it was the first move >>>searched and the material evaluations all came up even. >>> >>>My goal here is to compute ratings for various depths of search when using >>>(basically) material only evaluation. I would like to know, for example, how far >>>you could expect to get as a human player if you were able to catch all tactics >>>and combinations at a depth of 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. I have heard people say >>>that a human can get to expert level (2000) by mastering tactics, and I would >>>guess they also know enough positional knowledge to get by. >> >>I believe that programs can get to expert level >>and even more than it by only piece square table >>and depth 13+extensions and pruning of normal >>chess programs(no knowledge about castling is needed) >> >>It does not mean that humans can do it because >>they cannot see everything about tactics. >> >>I agree that humans can get to 2000 level >>by mastering tactics but it does not mean that >>they have no knowledge about passed pawns or >>weak pawns or mobility or king safety. >> >>They may not have more positional knowledge >>than 1600 players but the knowledge of 1600 players >>is more than piece square table. >> >>Uri > >what do you call "piece square table", please ? piece square table evaluation is evaluation when every piece in the board get some score that is only a function of the square. You need only to add the scores of all pieces to calculate the evaluation. It means that passed pawns cannot be evaluated because you need to know about the position of more than one pawn to do it. 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.