Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:04:15 09/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2003 at 08:45:28, Michael Yee wrote: >[snip] > >>I did an experiment once... I made a version of GLC 2.18 that used only material >>balance in its evaluation. >> >>It played a 20 game match against GLC 2.13. During the match 2.18 averaged 2 to >>4 ply more than 2.13 (mainly due to extra cut-offs, the NPS search speed was >>only about 20% faster). >> >>The result... 2.13 won, by 19.5 points to 0.5 points. This gives roughly a 640 >>ELO rating difference. >> >>Normally I would expect 2.18 to be about 50 ELO stronger than 2.13. >> >>So loosing the 'positional' part of the eval function seems to have caused >>around a 700 ELO drop in strength. >> >>Conclusion: the evaluation is important. :) >> > >[snip] > >Very interesting experiment! The result isn't exactly what de la Maza predicted >in his "400 Points in 400 Days" article on ChessCafe: > > You can refine this experiment further by creating two personalities, > one that can see three moves ahead but has no positional knowledge and > the other that can see two moves ahead and has complete positional > knowledge. The tactical personality, which can see three moves ahead, > will win the vast majority of the games. > > [http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf] > >I wonder how much of the 700 ELO points gained in GLC due to positional >knowledge came from pawn structure, king safety, mobility, etc... > >Michael I think that even a simple piece square table is clearly better than only material balance in the evaluation. It is obvious that only material balance is going to lose. I think that the authour did not mean not to have piece square table when he said "no positional knowledge" 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.