Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:09:41 02/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
>> >>why did i know you would say that? :-) >> >>i just don't believe it. perhaps the eval is not perfect, so what? if your >>argument is correct, then there must be some threshold for the "degree of >>correctness" for the eval discontinuity to work. if it's "correct enough", it >>will work - like EGTB info which has 100% correctness. what makes you think >>other eval terms cannot be "correct enough"? >> >>cheers >> martin > >All I can say is that _everybody_ has seen the effect. It is well-known, and >causes problems. One example is just say "endgame starts here" with a specific >material count, and watch what happens. When you are right around that material >level, you will see odd things happen, from making poor positional moves that >lose the game, to avoiding making good moves, because the program either wants >or doesn't want to "cross the bridge". If you make the transition smoother, >then there is no bridge to cross, just a small step at a time and you end up >where you want without the new type of horizon effect problems a discontinuity >causes. > >Of course, if you don't believe it, that is perfectly fine. But I'll bet >dollars to doughnut holes that one day you will say "hmm... perhaps Bob (and >many others) was actually right here..." :) > The problem is not the discontinuity as such. Going from a good position to a completely won position shouldn't be a problem for most engines :) The problem is that since the eval is a bit inaccurate it will occasionally be "on the wrong side" of the real score. A classic example is that of not enough mating material. Say you implement knowledge in the engine that KBK is draw, when it then comes down to KBKP it will refuse to eat the pawn! -S.
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.