Author: José Carlos
Date: 15:01:30 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 17:51:59, Ingo Lindam wrote: >On October 27, 2002 at 17:25:58, José Carlos wrote: > >> I find your idea very interesting. I had never though it that way. All in >> all, it's very rare that the program knows nothing about a position. Most >> probably it applies wrong knowledge, but it always applies knowledge: >> material, > >Well, let's assume material to be equal... a 0 seems fair to evaluate this. > >> pawn structure > >very unknown pawn structure... might be good, might be worse.. so another 0? > >>, strong / weak squares, > >unfortunately there are no strong squares as I see it... and not really weak >squares...not as I define weak squars... so another 0? > >> open lines, > >oh...as well...unfortunately..also no open lines in this position.. this should >cause a 0... or even worse...? But my opponent has exactly the same... So even >if I can judge this...is should be another 0! > >> king safety, > >is it save? not a really save king...but not really worse... more save than >worse... as well as my opponent ok...completely different position of the >king...but nearly same score... So another 0 or not more than an epsilon here. >Ok? > >> piece mobility. > >As far as I can judge it... piece mobility must be nearly as mobile as my >opponent... Cant say much about it, but not worse than -epsilon... or another 0? > >> These things are always there. > >Yes, they should be there... but I might have very very less in hand to judge >about position. Current position fits less here and completely not there... > >> It could be that they don't matter at all in >> certain >> position, but then the program can do nothing to know it... or am I missing >> something? > >I ask me the same question: Do I miss here anything? > >I will get always a score for an position... but when the knowledge I use fits >not well to a position means that that score is probable near to 0? > >If so...and just if so (!!) I think this could be worse...because I would >probable assume my opponent to judge it the same way... giving it also a score >near to 0... and so I optimize towords a position I really know nothing about. > >I would expect it better to judge me a position as bad...as less I know about >it...and as better for the opponent to avoid me to play towards such a position. > >I could imagine that something like this is already be done in atleast some >programs, isn't it? > >Ingo > > >> José C. There's a difference between: a) my knowledge doesn't fit the position (ie no open lines where I have a bonus for open lines). b) the sum of weights is zero (I have one open line and my opponent has one open line). In the first case, you're right that zero eval is misleading and dangerous. In the second, the position is probably balanced (if this applies to many parameters, of course, not just one), so the zero is correct. José C.
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.