Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Bean counters argument

Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba

Date: 15:11:54 11/22/99

Go up one level in this thread


On November 22, 1999 at 14:29:27, Tord Romstad wrote:

>On November 20, 1999 at 14:22:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On November 20, 1999 at 12:31:11, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>No it isn't...
>
>I think you and José use the word "continous" with different meanings.
>José means that evaluation functions are continuos in the topological sense,
>meaning that the inverse image of open sets are open.  The truth of this
>statement depends on the topologies chosen on the domain and range of
>the evaluation function.  I assume that José chooses the discrete topology
>(in which _all_ subsets are open) for the domain (i.e. the space of all
>possible chess positions).  With this topology (there are many other possible
>topologies on the domain) any evaluation function is obviously continous.
>

	You are right on my interpretation of continuity. And yes, I meant the discrete
topology for the space of all chess positions, it seems completely natural for
me.
José.

>On the other hand, you seem to use the word "continous" in a more intuitive
>sense.  To points (chess positions) in the domain are considered "close" if
>it is possible to reach one of the positions from the other one in a small
>number of good moves.  Given two points which are close to each other in this
>sense, the evaluation function should return values which are also close.
>
>Tord



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.