Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 13:24:09 03/08/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2006 at 19:29:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. A sound engineering process in the works.
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.