Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:00:49 10/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2005 at 16:39:03, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 19, 2005 at 16:25:14, Christian Koch wrote: > >>>Do you plan to give some evaluation improvements in the next update >>>that are not related to this problem or do you plan to give only update for >>>tablebases support. >> >>How should the evaluation improvements look like? Please post some suggestions >>with reliable examples. >> >>Only tablebase support is not good enough for a next free release? > >I did not complain >I only asked about it. > >I do not claim to know how should evaluation improvements look like(except maybe >evaluation of some basic endgames like KQ vs KP and even if the program use >tablebases it is still productive because the program cannot evaluate tablebases >positions at every node) but I know that Fabien plans to improve the evaluation >based on an email that he sent me. > >I do not know if he had success in it. >I do not know if he know if he is going to have success in it in the time of the >next release. >I do not know if he plans to implement it in the next update in case that he has >success in it. > >I am sorry that some people consider every question that I ask as a personal >attack. > >I could ask Fabien by email but I think that it is information that may be >interesting to other posters so I did not do it but maybe it is better that I >ask question by email because every question that I ask here is understood as >personal attack by at least one of the CEGT testers. > >Uri I can add that I have more ideas for evaluation improvement but I prefer to post nothing about it because I am not sure if they work and I believe that fabien probably has better ideas than me for evaluation improvements. 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.