Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:24:07 02/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2004 at 17:30:09, Bob Durrett wrote: >On February 04, 2004 at 12:44:00, Randall Shane wrote: > >>On February 04, 2004 at 10:09:18, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2004 at 09:57:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>_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? >>> >> >>Can any program properly evaluate the positional factors in gambits? >>If the evaluation is absolutely perfect, after all, you wouldn't need search. > >Bob H., your logic is impeccable. : ) Oops! I meant to say: "Randall Shane, your logic is impeccable." : ) Bob D. > >Not being a chess programmer, I cannot be aware of the special considerations >and difficulties which may be involved. Nevertheless, I do read chess books >quite a bit. > >It seems to me, intuitively, that any improvements at all in ANY part of the >software would be good things. Motherhood, maybe, but surely reasonable. > >It seems logical that sacrificing a pawn for ***something*** would be a good >idea if the value of that something were roughly equal [in practice] to the >value of a pawn. Presumably, that something would account at least in part for >the success of the gambit. [Note that the something would not be psychological >advantage unless one is psyching out the programmer somehow.] > >I do not know whether or not any program can assess the value of the >compensation for the material sacrificed, and maybe programming the evaluation >code to do this is impractical or not feasible within reason. If so, then it >would not make sense to try. On the other hand . . . > >Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that it is possible and suppose some >brilliant ["Einstein-like"] programmer actually did that. Surely, the resulting >software would be no worse unless the code ate up a big chunk of the processor's >time. > >Is there any FUNDAMENTAL reason why trying to do this would be a bad idea??? > >Generally, I feel that chess engines smart enough to recognize positional [or >other non-material] advantages and disadvantages would do a better job of >determining which continuations to pursue during the searching. [I speak not >about the specific algorithms since I know not. : )] > >Recall an argument I presented here awhile back. Paul Morphy has been credited >with recognizing the need to create the preconditions for an attack before >committing to that attack. [For example, having a preponderance of material in >the vicinity of the enemy king.] Surely the position evaluation code can check >for presence/absence of such preconditions and use that information to decide >whether or not to look for attacking lines. [Attacking moves may be different >from "ordinary" moves.] > >Bob D.
This page took 0.04 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.