Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 09:09:16 02/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2004 at 10:52:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 25, 2004 at 05:56:16, martin fierz wrote: [snip] >>i don't know whether i should believe the eval discontinuity thing. i know >>somebody recently quoted a paper on this, but it's just a fact: exchanging any >>pieces necessarily changes the evaluation. sometimes not by very much. big >>changes are usually the exchange of the queen, the exchange of the last rook, >>the exchange of the last piece. these eval discontinuities are *real*. i don't >>believe in smoothing them out. perhaps if you write an eval with >>discontinuities it's harder to get it right that everything fits in with each >>other, and that's why it's supposed to be bad?! > >No. When you have a discontinuity, you give the search something to play with, >and it can choose when to pass over the discontinuity, sometimes with >devastating results.. The arguments of you two could be combined to this: Eval discontinuities are _real_ but it hurts the search too much and therefore it's better to be a tad less realistic in eval here in order to get maximum performance out of the search+eval. Does that make any sense? Sargon
This page took 0.01 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.