Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:47:02 02/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2004 at 22:05:52, Jaime Benito de Valle Ruiz wrote: >Hi, > >I'm sure we can all improve lots of things here. >However, I'd like to point out something: Most engines give a score between >-2.00 and -4.00 more or less, in a position where the side to move (black) is >hopelessfuly lost. Your engine gives a high positive score for white (if I >understood, the side to move). This, in my opinion, is the reason for we started >this experiment: To find flaws. >My engines is still too weak to be compared to most engines here, and my scores >would only polute the whole thing, rather than help others. But still, I've >already found uncountable ideas to improve it. I find all this unvaluable. >Keep giving suggestions, and we'll all find a way to make all this more fruitful >for everyone: Soon enough, we'll split the eval function into themes (or parts), >so we can refine our own work. Until then, we still have a long way to go. >Regards, > > Jaime I think that you overestimate the evaluation. search and not evaluation is the important thing at least in the level of engines that participate like Olithink or Waster. Olithink has better rating than Tinker based on Leo's list and olithink has a very small evaluation. source code is free so you can see what olithink evaluation includes and there was improvement in olithink's search from the version that played in Leo's tournament thanks to search and not thanks to evaluation. I am quiet sure that it is possible to continue and improve olithink's search without improving the static evaluation. Uri
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.