Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 08:15:28 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? > For some reason, everybody loves this question. For me, it's pretty boring. Both should be as good as possible. It would be nice if we could measure the search strength and "static eval" strength of every engine, though. Vas >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
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.