Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 10:45:10 12/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2005 at 06:47:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 16, 2005 at 01:49:44, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>On December 15, 2005 at 21:14:17, Ryan B. wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>Perhaps some kind soul could just take the Fruit 2.1 eval and implement >>it in their program and tell us the difference in Arena-play for the two >>of them in a round-robin with many others. >> >>Any takers? > >I do not think that it is an easy job to do it without bugs. > >I think that the best plan to do it has the following steps: >1)translate fruit's evaluation to human language. >2)modify fruit to calculate some type of perft function on it's evaluation >components >3)implement every component of fruit on your program >4)check that your program has no mistake in predicting fruit's evaluation by >calculating the same perft function on fruit code. > >If somebody does steps 1 and 2 then it is going to encourage me to try 3 and 4. > >Uri One doesn't have to be bug-free to prove that a direction is better. Stuart
This page took 0.01 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.