Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 13:53:40 04/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2004 at 19:48:53, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On April 14, 2004 at 19:46:18, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>On April 14, 2004 at 18:17:07, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>I have downloaded the document and skimmed it.
>>>
>>>I will read it carefully this weekend.
>>
>>In that case you might as well re-download it when you sit down to read it.
>>I've already made some tweaks that aren't yet posted.
>
>I am curious about the "wandering" evaluation terms.
>
>I suspect two things about these terms:
>1. That [usually] the correlational coefficient will be much smaller for these
>2. That they occur in pairs {or vectors} (e.g. if wildly different sets can
>both have nearly optimal results, then likely there are interactions)
I'm not sure what you mean by #1.
Regarding #2, my experience is that there are indeed many interactions.
Some features contribute only a small amount to the evaluation function quality
-- the weights of such features can have a wider range without penalizing
effectiveness too highly. It'd probably be better to find better features,
though. :-)
Dave
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.