Author: Mark Young
Date: 19:52:23 05/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 1999 at 22:18:47, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On May 18, 1999 at 21:38:19, Mark Young wrote: > >>On May 18, 1999 at 20:16:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On May 18, 1999 at 19:55:02, Mark Young wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>Incorrect logic and reasoning...Humans find moves this was all the time...its >>>>called positional play. >>>Of coures. And when they do find it, they know it is a good move. They would >>>not say, "Now I am down 1.5 pawns to my opponent." >> >>Are you a chess player, this statement is total ********. They don't know its a >>good move or winning move all the time...but they THINK its the best move (BM) >>in the position. >> >>The eval is meaningless, you can have a eval that shows anything. What is >>importent is if it plays the correct move and correct line. If it finds the >>correct move and line because it see all the other moves and lines are worse, or >>because it sees that 1 move and line wins, is no difference. Both methods are >>valid, and both are use by computers and humans. >> >>Think about what BM stands for, Best Move... Both methods can find the correct >>move and line of play, and have equal value in the real world and in a over the >>board game. >> >> >> >>> >>>In the same way, a chess program that thinks it is behind has not found the >>>right move yet. >>> >>>If you don't put down a bm for H7 to look for, it does an excellent job. If you >>>do put one down it does some bad things that make for crappy data. That was my >>>point, which you have failed to grasp. >>> >>>When you put down a bm and H7 immediately stops, it is not because of some >>>positional brilliancy. It is because it happened, at that iteration, to look >>>better than the other moves. Yet if the eval is still negative, it does not >>>know why the move was chosen. It just stopped. >> >>I will write slow so you understand. I don't care what or what not hiarcs7 finds >>because a BM input, or if it does something strange with the BM. I did not >>search the position with the BM. If Hiarcs7 were playing a real game, and got to >>those positions it would have played the BM and correct line. > >Some balance here is necessary. Some people are content to say that if a move >is selected as best, this is good enough. Other people insist on seeing a score >accompanying the move that accurately reflects the theoretical value of the >position after the move is played. > >It is important that an accompanying score is accurate. This certifies that the >software has seen its way through whatever complications may be present. >Changes to the position that do not interfere with the themes that support the >main line of play will not prevent a solution from being found. > >It is important that the best move is played, even if the accompanying score is >not accurate. This certifies that the software understands enough about the >position to make its way forward correctly -- for the moment. It is useful to >identify that a move is likely to be the most promising, even if a definitive >conclusion has not been reached. > >It is fair to say that the while the former is better, the latter is often >adequate. If the software's assessment of a position is highly perturbed by >"small" (read: irrelevant) changes to a position, then it could be said that >much "luck" is involved in it choosing a particular move or another. More >often, though, assessments do not vary widely between positions with "small" >(again read: irrelevant) changes, and in this case, it is partially the >consistency of the assessing that allows the proper move to frequently be >chosen, even without the discovery of a tactical verification, or tactical >refutation of alternatives. > >So, in testing, prefer a proper score, but do not ignore a proper best move >without a proper score. It is still doing something right: give it half credit. What is the proper score, any + score, a huge +score....the only proper score of a winning positions is mate in n. > >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.