Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:52:36 02/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2004 at 10:09:18, Bob Durrett wrote: >On February 04, 2004 at 09:57:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 03, 2004 at 18:12:15, Jay Scott wrote: >> >>>On February 02, 2004 at 22:53:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>the eval was fun to watch. -1.0, -.6, -.3, -.1, +.2, +.4, >>>>+1, +3 and over. :) >>> >>>If only it were smart enough to realize that the -1.0 is low.... >>> >>> Jay >> >> >>It is. But the book learning code doesn't look at only the first score, it >>looks at the slope of the line that plots the eval over time. And says "this is >>good, as it is steadily going up..." >> >>_any_ gambit starts off with you material down. Do you still play 'em? I >>played the King's gambit, the Latvian, the Evans, the Goring, the Danish, you >>name it. And in every game I started off a pawn (or more) down. :) > >Doesn't this mean that Crafty is improperly evaluating the positional factors in >gambits? > >Bob D. Not necessarily. IE I look at a winning position and say +3 for move X. You look at the position and say +5 for X. I just happen to weigh a couple of positional factors lower than you, but we choose the same move, see the same PV, and so forth. Which "number" is right? Who cares. The number doesn't win the game, the _move_ is what you have to come up with. I think any human that gambits a pawn has a "question" in the back of his mind, because he has lost many such gambits in the past.
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.