Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Bean counters argument

Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba

Date: 09:31:11 11/20/99

Go up one level in this thread


On November 20, 1999 at 10:24:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:

[big snip]
>
>This can cause serious problems.  There is a well-documented search/evaluation
>problem called "the discontinuity problem".  If you suddenly switch from one
>engine to another, then at positions around this 'switch' you can make gross
>errors.  Or you do like Fritz and have an eval of +1 before trading queens,
>and 0.00 after trading.  The evaluation/search has to perform in a continuous
>way, slowly transitioning from opening to middlegame, and from middlegame to
>endgame.  I used to have three distinct 'phases'.  I am slowly eliminating
>those and making the program perform better.
>
>I don't believe it will be possible to beat GM players consistently with big
>discontinuities in the evaluation, or in the search space.  They will notice
>the 'transition points' and take advantage of this.  In ways detrimental to
>the program.  It has happened to me many times.
>
>An example is king safety.  You want to slowly phase it out as you approach
>the endgame, not just <wham> it is off.  Because you might reach a position
>where your king shelter is gone, and you give up a pawn to trade away the
>piece that drops the king safety term to zero.  And convert a likely win into
>a sure draw/loss.
>
>IE "think smooth" not "jerky"...

Hi Bob,
	strictly speaking, the evaluation function is always continous, as its domain
is a discrete space. Of course I understand what you mean, wanting a "more
continous" evaluation function, i.e., one with less variation.
José.



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.