Author: stuart taylor
Date: 03:07:37 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 05:54:56, Richard Pijl wrote: >On July 01, 2003 at 05:41:31, Graham Laight wrote: > >>When a GM is contemplating a move, he doesn't say to himself, "Hmmmmm. I would >>give the resulting position a score of 1.723". >> >>Such an evaluation is nonsense anyway. There should properly be only 3 >>evaluations: >> >>1. Winning position >> >>2. Drawing position >> >>3. Losing position >> >>It would be nice if a program could work as follows: >> >>"nb5. This position contains a possible bishop trap". >> >>"nd5. This puts more pressure on the opponent's king" >> >>"Opponent classification: bishop trap success rate = 25%" >> >>"Opponent classification: king attack success rate = 15%" >> >>"Choice = nb5". >> >>-g > >Basically this is what chess programs do. Finding weakspots/strongpoints and the >possibilities to make use of them. All of those are folded into one number to be >able to compare two positions. >Richard. Yes, that's what I thught. There has to be a numeric conclusion somewhere. If humans could do that, it might be easier! S.Taylor
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.