Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:48:20 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 I do an uncertainity level in Anubis. I use it mostly to allow/disallow pruning or stand-pat, but it also works fine for comparing values. It's tricky and should be used carefully, but it can work. José C.
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.