Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Static evaluation after sac, how about asymmetry?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:22:39 12/04/99

Go up one level in this thread


On December 04, 1999 at 00:17:16, Peter McKenzie wrote:

>On December 03, 1999 at 21:12:23, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>I have always been asymmetric except for a few failed attempts scattered along
>>the way...   I think it is the right way myself...
>
>I have never been asymmetric, unless you count a small bonus for the side to
>move.
>
>I can see certain practical advantages to an asymmetric evaluation, but in the
>long term I personally don't think it is a good idea.  I'm interested in my eval
>being as accurate as possible.  If my eval thinks my opponent's sacrificial
>attack is unsound then I'm happy to allow the attack even if it means getting
>mated from time to time.  If I do get mated, then I can learn from it and
>improve the eval so it understands that type of position better.
>
>This approach is in contrast to asymmetric evaluation.  Here, if the 'real'
>(pre-asymmetry) eval thinks an opponent's sacrificial attack is unsound the
>program may still avoid the attack because the 'fudge factor' will be applied to
>the eval which may make the attack appear sound.  Sure, this allows you to avoid
>getting mated from time to time but at what cost?  I don't like it for 2
>reasons:
>
>1) the program will make other concessions to avoid unsound attacks
>2) it is harder to improve the accuracy of the evaluation function because the
>fudge factor means the eval isn't 'putting itself on the line'.
>
>I view this issue as similar to penalising blocked positions.  I don't like that
>because it isn't related to the objective assessment of the position.  I don't
>mind if humans win the odd game from blocked positions vs my program, as I will
>examine those games and improve the play of the program in that type of
>position.  Also I don't want my program choosing a bad open position instead of
>a good closed one (this is a bit extreme, but you get my idea).

If you don't handle blocked positions, winning the odd game isn't the problem.
The problem is you are going to draw _many_ games against lower-rated players,
because if you don't actively avoid positions where you have no viable pawn-
breaks, you reach positions where you simply can't win no matter what.

As a human I _definitely_ play like this, depending on who I am playing against.
I _never_ allow the position to become blocked against a weaker opponent that I
believe I can beat tactically.

Also, as a human, I don't think "my" evaluation is 100% symmetric either.  But
that is personal opinion...




>
>Just my personal philosophy regarding computer chess...
>
>cheers,
>Peter



This page took 0.02 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.