Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:10:44 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". Actually, he _does_. "Nb5 drops a pawn but has compensation in the attack on the enemy king." "Nf3 maintains material equality but my position is quite cramped." etc. I think that a human does _far_ more than just say "this is equal, winning or losing." I know I do. And the GM players I talk to seem to do this as well. While they might not do millipawns (or even centipawns) they certainly do fractions of a pawn in positional compensation. > >Such an evaluation is nonsense anyway. There should properly be only 3 >evaluations: > >1. Winning position > >2. Drawing position > >3. Losing position > That would be great if it were possible, but except for forced mates and forced repetitions, there are no such "exact evaluations" in the actual game. A GM might say "this is winning" but it is based on very fuzzy "computation" done mentally based on past experience and preferences. >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". That is about "discernability". It is a tough problem but a well-known issue in computer chess. > >-g
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.