Author: martin fierz
Date: 04:06:14 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 04:57:21, Tord Romstad wrote: >On April 08, 2004 at 18:13:40, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On April 08, 2004 at 17:36:15, Tord Romstad wrote: >> >>>Hi Ed, >>> >>>Did you intend to link to some other section of your pages? Perhaps I'm just >>>too tired, but >>>I can't see that the link you provide has any relation whatsoever to the topic >>>under >>>discussion. >>> >>>Tord >> >>I think I misread, I thought one of your worry was all the time-consuming >>compares and jumps to go to the relevant parts of eval depending of the material >>on the board. > >Ah, I see. We were discussing the high-level problem of big discontinuities in >the score >returned by the evaluation function. ...but if ed has this kind of switch statement in his code, that probably means he is going to do some eval based on the material situation, and have such discontinuities too - even if he didn't explicitly state this. and once again, i don't think it's really a problem. all you need to do is to move away from an eval that is based on material values to one which gives you a winning probability. e.g. being a pawn up in a pawn ending should not be evaluated as +1. if you do this fairly consistently, then the eval discontinuity problem should be no larger than it already is if you have a normal material-value type evaluation: there you have real discontinuities that are not reflected in your eval. i really wonder why nobody ever worries about these... > I never worry about low-level >optimization. My engine >is still very weak, oh, just shut up :-) if gothmog is very weak, what are all the engines that are EVEN weaker than gothmog (like mine and about 90% of all others posting here)??? modesty is a good thing, but i think you are really overdoing it ;-) cheers martin
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.