Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:15:41 07/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2003 at 00:25:49, Uri Blass wrote: <snipped> >>Maybe using it for the evaluation is not the most efficient use of a neural >>network in a chess program. It seems that the way human players manage to search >>the tree is vastly underestimated. >> >> >> >> Christophe > >I agree with you that search is underestimated in chess but I also believe >that search and evaluation are connected because a lot of search decisions are >based on evaluation of positions that are not leaf positions so you cannot >seperate them and say search improvement gives x elo and evaluation improvement >gives y elo. > >Uri I know that you did not try to seperate between them but my point is that if you want to do the same as humans in the search then changing the search is not enough. Humans may search position for some seconds and decide that this position is not good and later search the same position but decide that it is good for them not because they search deeper but because they learned to change their evaluation based on searching other lines that leaded to a similiar position. Uri
This page took 0.04 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.