Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 05:24:23 02/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2004 at 06:42:47, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 12, 2004 at 06:16:53, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On February 12, 2004 at 06:03:37, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>The main point is that programs should not evaluate unclear position as winning. >>> >>>Black has a big advantage without capturing the pawn so there is no reason to >>>capture h3 and get unclear pawn endgame. >>> >>>evaluating Rxh3 Rh2 as a win for white without search is a msitake but >>>evaluating it as a win for black is also a mistake that cause Crafty to miss a >>>simple win by not capturing the pawn. >> >>And again I'm reminded of the posts some months ago, in which someone suggested >>to have some kind of an uncertainty-value together with a score. In this case, >>the machine could decide that it's better to play a move with score +1 (5% >>uncertainty) than a move with score +2 (70% uncertainty). > >No > >score should consider the uncertianty inside of it. >The score is in pawns but can be also translated to an expected result. > >Uri You claim "my" suggestion doesn't work w/o really proving anything. Just because everyone isn't doing it that way doesn't mean the idea doesn't have any merit. I think the idea is worth it _for me_ to investigate and will do so in my engine. I'm aware it doesn't fit in the current minimax principle that well, but that doesn't mean it's useless either. (whether the implementation is (score, uncertainty%) or something else is another thing) Btw: "score should consider the uncertainty inside of it" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. When I say in statistics that the value is in the interval [a, b] with a certainty of 95%, I also can't put this 95% in the interval - or I end up with [-inf, +inf]. Sargon
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.