Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:19:52 12/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2002 at 11:59:18, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 15, 2002 at 11:39:59, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On December 15, 2002 at 11:04:59, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>Not at all! A program that judges the above position at 0.00at its evaluation >>>function, might opt for another _real_ winning variation, avoiding a draw; while >>>a program without such knowledge will enter this blockage thinking that it has a >>>certain victory in hand. >> >>I think you have to be careful with that kind of reasoning, because both >>scenarios involve "might". Either might choose another variation and might enter >>a blockade. The position a few moves before the one you posted would be more >>interesting. Would this or that engine end up in a blocked position voluntarily. >>There should be some paths to choose from. Looking at a score and trying to >>reason what it might have done is no good. >> >>Regards, >>Mogens > >I can add that the problem with static evaluation is that a program may be a >root processor so the fact that it knows to evaluate fortress position at the >root does not mean that it is going to know to evaluate it when the draw >position is deep in the tree. > True, and that is why I incorporate my blockage detection scheme within the evaluation function, so that it is applied to nodes in the search tree. >Uri
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.