Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:37:30 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2003 at 09:33:11, scott farrell wrote: >On January 01, 2003 at 08:48:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >I think if assessing positional evaluations functions, it might be better to >limit the search depth, say just try between 1 and 5, so the engine doesnt bring >tactics in to try to force the material balance, or castle sooner, or some such >thing. > >If you control the search depth, us humans can quickly see if there are any >tactics at all in say a 3 ply search. And thus its the positional evaluator and >not the search/null moves/etc etc that is the larger influencer. > >My engine with a static eval scored it at exactly 1 centipawn advantage for >black (0.01) . > >After a few plies it got up to 0.5. My opinion is that if you want your engine to see 0 score by static evaluation then the engine has to be smarter then humans. The evaluation of humans before analysis is advantage for black and only after they analyzed forward they could see positional compensation. Humans need to calculate many plies forward to find enough positional compensation so it is clearly logical to let computers to do the same. 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.