Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:19:35 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 08:02:57, Tord Romstad wrote: >On April 09, 2004 at 07:06:14, martin fierz wrote: > >>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. > >It most definitely *is* a real problem, but of course it is not impossible to >solve. In case >it is not clear, I think it is absolutely necessary to have lots of specific >code for various >material situations in order to play the endgame well. I am not sure about it. It is also enough to search deep enough in order to play the endgame well. The truth for every game is that if you search deep enough you do not need good evaluation and if you have a lot of knowledge in the evaluation then you do not need deep search. 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.