Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 09:48:10 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 12:03:51, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >Hi Bob, > >>After reading the thread started by this bulletin I get the impression that the >>methods discussed have the primary benefit of requiring little computation and >>hence a very small percentage of the microprocessor's time. [also, not very much >>time required to produce the code] > >for me the Smirf method as shown here targets only static average piece values. >Its implications for dynamic detail evaluation I have not yet described at my >homesite. But as far as I can see, this is really cost intensive, sorry. Well, if it's too cost intensive, then it may not be worth it, of course. Perhaps the idea of "getting at dynamic and positional evaluations" indirectly by way of variable piece valuations is not the way to go. Perhaps, instead, dynamic and positional factors should be evaluated directly in the positional evaluation. My guess is that the tradeoff must between "getting at dynamic and positional evaluations" by the two methods. It would take some cost to do direct evaluation of dynamic and positional factors and that cost is what should be traded against the costs of the variable piece valuation approach. Agree? Bob D. > >>There are many positions cited and discussed in the printed chess literature >>which show radically different piece valuations applicable to only to the >>specific position being discussed. As a trivial example, if it is mate in one >>and the final checking move is to be made by a pawn, then the value of that pawn >>is infinite. > >There have some levels of evaluating to be distinguished. Tactical combinations >as e.g. matings have nothing to do with average piece values. > >>It is not clear to me that the simplified model being used is optimal in terms >>of amount of benefit versus cost. Perhaps a more complex but more accurate >>model would produce higher engine performance. I don't know, of course. > >I prefer better (and costly) evaluated knots. But a evaluation method should be >based on verifyable assumptions. That is what I am still missing. Therefore I >try to describe a method which could stand practice tests. And I have begun with >average piece values. Here Capablanca's Chess is a good testing field, because >the values of the two fairychess pieces are not fixed by a centuries old >tradition. Tests can show, which basic method seems to fit better. > >Regards, Reinhard.
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.