Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:34:40 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 And I would hope the scores are not the same for those two cases either. The 40% win probability should (IMHO) have a higher score than a position with a 1% win/98% draw score... The latter should be near to 0.00
This page took 0.05 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.