Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Position Evaluation

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 18:30:30 11/22/99

Go up one level in this thread

On November 22, 1999 at 20:39:29, Ratko V Tomic wrote:

>What Ed is saying that in anti-gm mode, Rebel "will not always play the best
>moves in respect to the normal REBEL" i.e., as I read it, in the absence of
>clear tactical gain, Rebel will not take the sum of all the minor positional
>gains and pick the move which gives the maximum sum (as the "normal REBEL"
>does), but it will make up its mind and pursue an definite objective, with
>uncertain gain, in one area of the board at the expense of the total sum of
>minor gains it could see in various other areas. Obviously, the sense of timing
>and suitability, knowing just the right moment and the right place and right the
>kind for such symmetry breaking action, that a GM has, cannot be easily (if at
>all) programmed. But I think, as his interview indicates, Ed must have added
>some symmetry breaking algorithm into the evaluation, to give the program a good
>chance of wrestlig the initiative against the GM players.

I think that including initiative as an evaluation term is sufficient to provide
this behavior.  The initiative term need not be too low.  A rule of thumb I
learned once is that "90% of the time, the initiative is worth a pawn."
Obviously, it would take some work to translate this into an eval function.
Simply testing for initiative and adding 1 to a score would produce horrible
results.  But the main idea is clear enough.


Quantifying the amount of initiative one or the other opponent has
The frequent repetition of "static evaluation" ignores that dynamic terms can

This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.