Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 11:39:44 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 14:11:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 01, 2003 at 07:26:04, Amir Ban 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". >>> >> >>Probability of outcome and evaluation score are essentially the same thing. >> >>Amir > > >Many overlook that. _Way_ too many take a chess program's score as a >"absolute value." It is really a "probability estimate of winning or >losing." It also needs to contain distance information e.g. not all mate scores are equal even when the probability of win[nin]g is. It's relevant to know whether a move brings you closer to some desirable goal and reflect this in the evaluation.
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.