Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 07:46:03 04/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 1999 at 10:39:30, blass uri wrote: > >On April 16, 1999 at 01:19:01, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On April 15, 1999 at 23:56:39, Milton Zucker wrote: >> >>> OK, so maybe my definition has some holes in it :-). But there are >>>individuals, including respected chess programmers, who talk about the degree to >>>which chess programs possess chess knowledge. There was a thread in rgcc not so >>>long ago in which Ed Schroder alludes to the fact that he removed some chess >>>knowledge from Rebel 10c to speed up its search and help it play better against >>>computers. He also felt that this had some adverse effects on the program's >>>playing style. I am not a chess programmer and will not attempt a serious >>>attempt at defining a knowlege-based chess program. However, intuitively, I feel >>>that some programs seem to "know" more about chess positions than other programs >>>and use that information to good effect. The definition I proposed of a >>>knowledge-based chess program may be bad (your response convinced me), but it >>>seems too easy to summarily dismiss the concept as a "marketing buzzword". >> >>I think that when programmers like Ed talk in this manner, they are talking >>about how well their static evaluator assesses positions. They are focusing on >>chess-specific "knowledge" that the program uses to end up with a scalar value. >>Another thing they might or might not include in "knowledge" is the >>understanding of when it is safe and when it is not safe to stop searching and >>perform a static evaluation. >> >>Ed removed chess "knowledge" to speed up the search, and reported a strength >>increase against computers. I don't recall him saying definitively that Rebel >>10.0c plays worse against humans, but I don't read the Rebel web board >>regularly. It's not clear that 10.0c would play worse against humans than >>10.0b: it might understand less, but the search speed may compensate. >> >>And it is true that Ed's static evaluator is very good. Compared to other chess >>software I have used, Rebel is the best at having a "real score", that is, one >>that accurately reflects what is happening in the position. > >I do not understand what is the meaning of accurately reflects what is happening >in the position. > >Is there a way to prove it? I think if you had access to the source code, you might be able to. I guess that means "no" for us. >It is possible to prove that one static evaluation function is better than the >other by doing a match between programs when both programs choose the best move >based on 1 ply search with no extensions. Even here, a quiescence search will have already kicked in. >It does not prove that the winner is better in positional knowledge because you >can hide tactical knowledge in the static evaluation(for example one program >can identify stalemate in the static evaluation when the other program is not >identifying stalemate. I agree. >Uri Dave
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.