Author: Omid David
Date: 09:14:18 10/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2002 at 11:56:44, Sune Fischer wrote: >On October 04, 2002 at 11:42:09, Omid David wrote: > >>On October 04, 2002 at 11:38:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:36:16, Omid David wrote: >>> >>>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:33:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:25:12, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 04, 2002 at 11:22:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 04, 2002 at 10:34:43, Omid David wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>had fritz implemented such a scheme it would play 300 points weaker >>>>>>>anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>>"Obviously" it's "impossible" to implement such a scheme, because you've tried >>>>>>that already for 5 minutes and it didn't work? SCNR :) >>>>>> >>>>>>Sargon >>>>> >>>>>I played with it with DIEP a few years ago and it performed horrible. >>>> >>>>If you apply such method to each and every node in the search tree, it's natural >>>>that the whole search is slowed down in a horrible manner. >>> >>>no you really are an idiotic programmer if you slow down that >>>much by just a few heuristics. >> >>"just a few heuristic" isn't the case here. It's a complicated (pretty >>time-consuming) algorithm, and this, to make sure its results are 100% correct. >> >>>I already do a lot of scans on the >>>board of diep. a full eval is like 100k clocks. so a scan over >>>the board is not so expensive. i already scan the pawn structure >>>extensively in fact. it's just a few functions i need to turn on >>>to find otu things. >>> >>>>> >>>>>when you have code that 'overrules' other code then you take away hundreds >>>>>of patterns which normally compensate knowledge. it means that if that >>>>>single pattern is incorrect, that you lose directly a game. >>>> >>>>Of course. And that's why your heuristic should be 100% correct and reliable. >>> >>>the problem of the whole chess game is that you have never 100% correct >>>and reliable evaluation except if your opponent is mated. >> >>Wrong. I've conducted hundreds of tests, and in no single case has my heuristic >>returned an inaccurate result. There exist blockades that it fails to detect, >>but it never declares a false draw. > >Perhaps this is too restrictive too. >You could have some confidence variable, if you draw detector cannot say with >100% certainty that it's draw, then interpolate the evaluated score with the >confidence level: score=eval()*(100-confidence)/100. > >It might help the engine to steer clear of those drawish positions? But as Vincent pointed out, such heuristics have an overriding nature. Even the slightest inaccuracies can result in a total disaster. Omid. > >-S. >>Omid. >> >>> >>>>Omid.
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.