Author: Greg Lazarou
Date: 10:03:46 01/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 1999 at 08:59:53, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 09, 1999 at 05:55:25, Graham Laight wrote: > >>As I was sitting eating my breakfast just now, it occured to me that there are >>basically 3 items that, between them, will influence how close an evaluation of >>a chess position is to how good that position really is: >> >>1. The number of pieces of knowledge the evaluation function can call upon >> >>2. The quality of those pieces of knowledge >> >>3. The accuracy of selecting the right pieces of knowledge (and their >>appropriate weightings) for the position at hand >> >> >>Does anybody have any thoughts about this? > >Yes, but I'm not an expert so take it with a grain of salt. :-) The knowledge >you mention seems correct but would be almost useless without a deep search so >it seems to me the search depth and knowledge are intertwined and as everything >else in life, must be a comprimise. Unless you have deep blue hardware and can >afford both. >Jim Walker Well, a different point of view from a non-expert: the quality of the static evaluation is orthogonal and independent from the depth search capabilities (not independent since the higher quality eval probably slows the search - but independent conceptually). I'd say a sign of a good static eval would be that a static evaluation at ply of 1 would sort the moves just as well as a search at depth x (when x is higher and higher the static eval that yields similar results is better and better). A perfect eval would mean that you don't need a search function! Greg
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.