Author: Joseph Ciarrochi
Date: 21:37:25 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
> >It depends on the stage or the phase of the game, an static evaluation by a >computer engine of less than +1.0 in an opening stage is less reliable when it >gives an evaluation less than +1.0 in the endgame stage. Thus, an evaluation of >less than 1.0 is not quite a severe disadvantage in the opinion of chess praxis >because there some dynamic compensation for Black. Dynamic compensations are >not static values. Its value can change completely as the position unfolds more >and more to a static position. Hence, an static evaluation of 1.0 is a great >advantage when the position is void of dynamics or the position approaches to a >more static phase of the game, for example, the transition to an endgame. Even >in an endgame an advantage of +1.0 for either side is not very much if it is a >rook ending, compared to a minor ending, Knight vs. Bishop, the +1.0 advantage >can be enough advantage to convert to a bigger advantage. My recommendation is >to stop evaluating the position from a STATIC point of view, but start to >evaluate the position more from a DYNAMIC point of view, this is what IM Andrew >Martin is reccommending. > >My 2 cents, > >Laurence This is a brilliant post, Laurence! Thanks for that. It would be great if the computers could caputure the uncertainty of the evaluation (e.g., a particular rook ending might be +1 with a plus/minus .8 confidence interval) whereas knight ending might often be +1 with plus/minus .2 confidence interval). Is this possible? I have another question? Why are computers more prone to error with dynamic positions? Rybka at 19 ply still sees .8 for white. If rybka is this deep, doesn't it see how the position changes? Still a little confused :( best Joseph
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.