Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:29:39 03/07/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2006 at 19:15:05, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On March 07, 2006 at 15:38:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 07, 2006 at 00:34:48, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>On March 07, 2006 at 00:31:45, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On March 07, 2006 at 00:27:43, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>>>Very interesting indeed. A clever test. >>>>> >>>>>If one's results do not rotate approximately as described >>>>>for the four positions and you say the evaluation is an >>>>>issue, what kinds of evaluation issues have you seen that >>>>>could explain it?!? >>>> >>>>The most common thing that I see is something that is good for white being >>>>counted as positive for black also on the evaluation. Often, when we are >>>>writing the eval, we are thinking from the perspective of white. And so if we >>>>are not very careful, we may invert the sign of some evaluation component and >>>>count something that is good for white as something that is good for black (or >>>>vice versa, though the reverse is seen less often for some reason). >>>> >>>>There are, of course, many other possible causes besides that. >>> >>>A good point. I try to avoid that by always doing things from the >>>side on move, almost always. There are a few in there however with >>>respect to white and black specifically, but they are then folded >>>together with the stm variable and stm^1 which translate to white/black >>>or black/white depending on who's on move. I could try this: rerun >>>your rotation test with successively less in the evaluation table >>>until nothing but material and see what happens. >>> >>>Stuart >> >>Let me toss in that we are talking about apples and oranges at the moment. WAC >>is not about evaluation very much. It is mostly about finding mates or >>significant material wins, and there your evaluation isn't much help so long as >>it knows how to add up the values of pieces... >> >>getting WAC solved quickly is really about tactics, extending the right things, >>and trying to avoid extending the wrong things... > >But an asymmetric evaluation function could unbalance the search >sufficiently to cause an issue, no? I think we should just eliminate one variable at a time. When we are done, what is left will be the answer.
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.