Author: José Carlos
Date: 15:09:54 10/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2002 at 14:54:58, Aaron Tay wrote: >On October 27, 2002 at 18:41:22, José Carlos wrote: > >>On October 27, 2002 at 18:25:32, Ingo Lindam wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2002 at 18:01:30, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>>You are right about that difference... but I want to give you a realistic >>>example for the programm evaluate near 0 for the few things he can >>>evaluate...and another 0 for all the things it doesn't know anything about. >>>My problem still isn't solved. You wouldn't play towards a position you just >>>know it is ballanced in the aspect of open files, but in all the other aspects >>>you can't judge it at all, would you? >> >> I know what you mean, but I'm afraid I wasn't clear myself. >> Suppose I'm a program who has 50 eval terms (open lines, knights in the center >>of the board, doubled pawns, pawn protection around the king...). >> I look for those 50 patterns on the board: >> a) I find them all there. The final sum is near zero. In this case, I can only >>conclude that the position is balanced. >> b) I only find 10 and they seem to be balanced. In this case, your idea is >>totally correct: I might want to go to that position thinking it's drawn, but I >>would be going into an unknown (for me) position. > >Why the cutoff at 10? Just an example :) José C. >> If b happens, the program should be able to assess a negative score for >>itself, but: b happens very seldom, if ever; if a happens it is possible that >>the program is simply not understanding the position, but that might be true no >>matter what the score is. > >It also seems to me that it might not understand the position, but in fact might >even be winning in a few moves! It would be sheer irony, for the program to >avoid those positions. > > >> So my point is that your idea is correct, but extremely difficult to detect. > >Maybe it can be studied, by logging positions where such occurances happen, and >study the positions after and see whether it is true, the theory that such >positions are bad. > >> 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.