Author: jefkaan
Date: 08:31:09 10/30/03
just being curious, i wonder what sort of opinions people in this forum have about: 1) the (inc)accuracy of the scores of different engines in middle/ (practical)endgame positions, and 2): the variation the scores of different (top)engines (besides scaling factors of a positional nature). Reasons for my question: 1) when playing standard with a reasonable engine (yace) against top-engines i'm setting my resign score lower every time, eg. when its below 3 i usually already can consider resigning; on the other hand, when i'm above +2, chances my side/engine will be winning are above 90 % (in lightning it can change a bit more, especially in gambit type of play, but then its just a matter of doubling the win/lose score i guess). 2) when evaluating openings i wonder what the best positional engine would be, maybe Hiarcs9, maybe Shredder, i just dont know. Altogether they are not so much different in their judgments (ie numerical evaluations), i suspect, may on average about 0.3 pawn standard deviation difference in the cross correlations, or whatever you could use in statistical sense (although in some difficult positions computers still sometimes are considerably different ie more stupid than human IM/GM evaluators, yep i know, or at least i believe that, at least when its a GM above the 2800 scale or so) Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this best regards, jefk PS and dont tell me btw i'm an idiot who doesnt know anything about chess, i know that as i've heard that already for some 10 yrs now (mainly from a limited nr of people), but i'm still learning, you know :)
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.