Author: Ryan B.
Date: 18:14:17 12/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2005 at 19:57:45, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 15, 2005 at 19:38:51, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On December 15, 2005 at 19:18:37, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>I also agree and I never underestimated fruit's evaluation. >>>It is possible that the main reason for it's superior evaluation is the idea of >>>average between opening and endgame but it is fact that it has a superior >>>evaluation. >> >>Really? Just the line from fruit:eval.c: >> >> eval = ((opening * (256 - phase)) + (endgame * phase)) / 256; >> >>I find that VERY hard to believe. That concept has been around a >>very long-time. > >I do not read much source code of free programs so I do not know but I wonder >if free source code programs before fruit use that idea and have for every term >endgame evaluation and opening evaluation. > >I use it for some things and I learned the idea from fruit but most of my >evaluation does not use that idea and I may rewrite the evaluation and test. > > >> >>You must propose something better. >> >>Superior evaluation? >> >>That code is trivially small. >> >>So, small is beautiful? > >bigger has the potential to be better but it is not always better. >I believe that Rybka's evaluation is even better than fruit's evaluation but >fruit's evaluation is better than the evaluation of most top programs including >Shredder9. > >Uri A strong point of Fruits eval is that it is more accurate than it is deep. Many people think they will have a better eval by having more knowledge but end of having bad chess knowledge that does not work well this other knowledge in the eval. Ryan
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.