Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:21:41 02/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2003 at 10:57:50, Stephen Ham wrote: >Dear Jose, > >Thanks for noticing. I'm not the computer chess expert that you folks are, so I >wrote it through the eyes of an average person. > >There were a couple small errors that I wish I had caught. My review was >completed in mid-January, well in advance of the February rating list. So I made >a couple of quick revisions to my review when the latest list came out, but now >see that I missed a spot. I also found a typo where I wrote "speach" rather than >"speed." I hope that didn't ruin the review for you. > >As a non-expert regarding chess computers, please allow me to ask a question >that's probably very stupid. It's clear that I found Shredder 7 to be a very >strong chess engine, in fact, one of the strongest to date. Yet I also found >that its ability to evaluate positions was not equally good. In fact, I think >Fritz 6a and Fritz 7 have more accurate evaluation functions. Is there not a >direct coorelation between a chess engine's ability to pick the right move and >its ability to corectly evaluate the position? > >Thanks in advance. > >Stephen 1)I think that search is important and searching deeper may compensate for inferior evaluation. 2)I think that there are other things that are important in the evaluation and it is the ability to evaluate which move is better. If you add 1 pawn to the computer's evaluation then it is going to choose the same move unless it rejects repetition idea. If you add 0.1 pawn in 50% of the cases and substract 0.1 pawn in 50% of the cases the result may be worse inspite of the fact that the evaluation is more close to the real evaluation. It is easy to try it by adding 0.1 pawns in the evaluation in half of the cases(for example by adding a bonus of 0.1 pawns for the side to move) Uri
This page took 0.01 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.