Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 11:39:11 10/25/02

Go up one level in this thread

On October 25, 2002 at 14:29:59, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 13:11:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 25, 2002 at 12:39:38, Ingo Lindam wrote: >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>I repost my former post under this new title just hoping to encourage >>>more people to join the discussion: >>> >>>I am new at the Computer-Chess Club and would like to discuss some >>>suggestions for (a new generation of) chess knowledge using (and >>>generating?) chess engines. During my time at the university and at my >>>first job after making my exams in computer science I was involved in >>>statistical speech/pattern recognition and machine translation. That >>>might atleast a reason for some of my ideas. >>> >>>I am not sure whether these suggestions have never been made or just >>>named to be impossible to implement. (I am sure they are not.) >>> >>>I would really like to see the computers measure a position rather in a >>>set of probabilities e.g. (P+,P=), where >> >> >>I think that if you look at what chess programs do, this is the essence of the >>evaluation. The larger the number, the greater the probability that side will >>win. The smaller the number, the greater the probability that side will lose. >>Scores near zero imply draw, of course... > >Not exactly. > >You can translate pawn to expected result but not to probabilities. > >The expected result is the same in the following 2 cases: >probability 1% win for white and 98% draw >probability 40% win for white and 20% draw. > >The probabilities are not the same. > >Uri I agree with Bob here. Somewhere in the program you must have a function to combine all the probabilities into a comparision with an other set of probabilities. In order to save yourselve loads of system time you could also implement that function into the evaluation function, in which case you only have to return an integer. Then you have again a chess engine working at the same way. Away probabilities. Just return an integer :)

- Re: likelihood instead of pawnunits? + chess knowledge
**Ingo Lindam***16:20:44 10/25/02*- Re: likelihood instead of pawnunits? + chess knowledge
**Vincent Diepeveen***19:03:09 10/25/02*

- Re: likelihood instead of pawnunits? + chess knowledge

This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.