Author: chandler yergin
Date: 07:31:41 02/06/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2006 at 19:41:52, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >On February 05, 2006 at 18:15:26, enrico carrisco wrote: > >>I think the "SUPER" evaluation strength is imagined because the tactics are >>stronger than anything else. Somehow, in the midst of all the madness, >>the eval gets the credit. > >>Sometimes people read what they want into the motives for why moves were >>selected and "Rybka worship" requires that people think it evaluates these >>things when it actually searches them. > >Which is more important, search or eval? > >Or perhaps their intertwined ability (neither gets top billing) to select >relatively better moves, more often or better in more critical circumstances >(than the opponent)? > >Do some programs perform eval (in any form) during search? > >It has often been said that the winner of a chess game is the player who makes >the next to last mistake. > >Wonder what that means for comparing chess programs. I'm sure they all make >mistakes. I'm sure they all are imperfect in some regard. > >Which program more likely makes only the next to the last mistake (& ends up the >victor). > >Which program more likely makes the last mistake--and slips up more often in the >opening, middle-game, and/or endgame, such that its opponent can convert the win >from that position. > >Fascinating topic. Not sure search or eval takes top billing in such a >discussion. > >All comments welcome. > >--Steve Programs/Comps don't make mistakes! They play the best move found... when it comes time for them to move or, when you stop the analysis. They are a Tool! We use them for enjoyment. Period! I don't understand why people don't realize this! cy
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.