Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:31:09 12/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 1999 at 18:10:03, Will Singleton wrote: >On December 03, 1999 at 08:49:19, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>Over the last few days, I have been fascinated by the discussions on CCC >>about positional sacrifices. Some of the discussion has centred on the value >>assigned to the attack that is obtained after the sacrifice and I was wondering >>how other programs evaluated the position after Hossa's sac: >> >>r3q1k1/ppp1rp2/2n1b2Q/8/2P5/3B4/PPP2RPP/5RK1 b - - 0 2 >> >>This is after 1. Bxh6 gxh6 2. Qxh6 from the original position posted by >>Peter McKenzie. PostModernist's static evaluation of the position is presented >>below. Essentially, it thinks that White is winning by 0.71. The ATTACKTOTAL >>score is generated by analyzing the squares around the King to see how many of >>them are attacked and what sorts of pieces are attacking them. Please note that >>not all the factors that contribute to PM's score are included in the output >>below. >> >>Could other programmers post similar information? I believe that even an >>overall static evaluation would be interesting. >> >>Cheers >> >>Andrew Williams >> >> >> >>SCORE ANALYSIS >>BLACK to move >> >>MATERIAL -137 (Positive means WHITE has more material) W:19086 B:19223 >>Game stage M >>Actual moves played: 1 (halfMoves=1) >> >>Fifty move counter: 0 >> >>r=547 # # # q=1040 # k=15939 # >> >>o=103 o=106 o=103 # r=565 o=94 # # >> >> # # n=346 # b=346 # # Q=1022 >> >> # # # # # # # # >> >> # # P=101 # # # # # >> >> # # # B=344 # # # # >> >>P=103 P=103 P=98 # # R=553 P=103 P=115 >> >> # # # # # R=555 K=15993 # >> >> >>HCW=1 HCB=1 >>cannotCW=1 cannotCB=1 >>CCRW=0 CCRB=0 >> >>Piece Bonuses White=4 Piece Bonuses Black=-34 >> >>KINGEXPOSURE WHITE=3 KINGEXPOSURE BLACK=16 >>DANGERSQUARES WHITE=0 DANGERSQUARES BLACK=5 >>ATTACKINGFORCE WHITE=21 ATTACKINGFORCE BLACK=0 >>ATTACKTOTAL WHITE=240 ATTACKTOTAL BLACK=0 >> >> >>EVALUATION : 71 (positive means WHITE is winning) > >For Amateur: > >r3q1k1/ppp1rp2/2n1b2Q/8/2P5/3B4/PPP2RPP/5RK1 b - - > >Using a static eval, I get different results if it is White or Black doing the >evaluating. I guess this is a result of my asymmetrical king-safety. > >White says +0.73, Black says +1.29 (+ is good for white). Does anyone else do >this asymetrically? > >Will Except for an experiment giving the side to move a bonus to some extend i've never been assymmetric. When I threw out this bonus too, then diep improved a lot in level. Logical one would say a bonus for having the side to move is good, but it never worked for DIEP. Never figured out why. Did i have a bug? Apart from this discussion, from which i don't know whether it's good to have, being assymetric becasue white might be a human and black a computer, i am against using an assymmetric evaluation function for that. Contempt factor should already prevent getting a draw namely. No need to underestimate the opponent somehow or favour open position for the computer a lot more, though at the icc server this means obviously you lose a lot of points to draws in closed positions.
This page took 0.01 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.