Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:44:05 09/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2003 at 08:37:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 18, 2003 at 08:25:52, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 18, 2003 at 08:11:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On September 18, 2003 at 07:36:25, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>On September 18, 2003 at 06:30:27, macaroni wrote: >>>> >>>>>thats an example position it got to, it gives about a -0.1 for that position, >>>>>when clearly it is hopeless, the pawns broken up, and very bad pieces. >>>> >>>>The position doesn't seem to be lost ( for a computer that is ) >>>> >>>>After 30 min XiniX still gives only -1 ( what it also gave after 1 sec.) >>>> >>>>Tony >>> >>>make that -10 >> >>-10 pawns? >> >>I guess it is easy to change it from -1 pawn to -10 pawns by multiply all >>evaluations by 10. > >Considering your evaluation must be fitted within 2000 lines of C code, that >sounds an excellent solution to me for movei, assuming this 2000 lines is a hard >constraint. The discussion here is not about movei so I see no reason to discuss about it. I only said that value of -10 pawns means nothing because it is easy to get it without big positional evaluation. -1 of one program may be equivalent to -1.6 of another program in terms of probability of winning so comparing static evaluation is nonsense. Uri
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.