Author: Alan Grotier
Date: 12:42:45 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 14:10:44, Robert Hyatt 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". > >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. Interesting stuff. Thanks for the insight. Alan > > > >> >>-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.