Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 01:10:10 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2005 at 09:43:39, chandler yergin wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 21:04:16, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On April 22, 2005 at 20:49:40, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >> >>>In the spat further down the page between Chandler and Terry, Chandler makes the >>>statement: >>> >>>"The PV evals are static positional values, and meaningless unless a Mate is >>>found." >>> >>>In support of Chandler, I have seen engines evaluate themselves as +3 and wind >>>up drawing or even losing the game. Giving equal time to Terry, it seldom >>>happens and, off the top of my head, I can't recall seeing a top engine score >>>itself +4 or better and fail to win the game. >>> >>>Perhaps other members can supply some instances. Membership in the Order of the >>>Phoenix goes to the most impressive comebacks. > >>> >>>Best >>>Dan H. >> >>I have seen +6 or 7 and and the engine then lose. Very , rare and I don't have >>examples to show. I think it may harder with today's engines and fast >>processors -- my recollections are going back to the 90's and perhaps beyond. > > >Gentlemen! Thank you for your support; I appreciate it. > Hi Chandler You're welcome. However my support was qualified. I agree with you that to know "for sure" you take it to mate. But when a good engine runs a reasonably deep search and comes back with a lopsided score that is a darn good indication of who -should- win. If you look at the code for most engines you would be inclined to say "it really doesn't know much about chess". To me it a fascinating thing that the search imparts a knowledge far beyond what the engine appears to know. Best Dan H.
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.