Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 09:17:54 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
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 No, many times a good player looks through the possible variations, and then says: "well, choice A leads to a nice position, but my king will be badly exposed; choice B leads to a steadier position, and I like it more, etc." But computers cannot evaluate a positions verbally, so that evaluation is translated into numbers. And those numbers (the score) tell us the emphasis the programmer has put on each of the factors. > >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
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.