Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:12:56 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? Evaluation is one form of knowledge. Another is search. If you can see a bit farther than the opponent, this also makes your move choices stronger. The evaluation information can be positional or tactical. I can choose to strengthen my pawn formation and increase my space, or I can choose to hunt for some pawn I can snack on 9 fullmoves down the road. Each of these importance weights will make the chess program evaluate a board position and play differently. Which way actually makes the program stronger can only be determined by a long and careful experiment.
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.