Author: Dan Homan
Date: 08:49:42 12/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 1999 at 21:31:09, Vincent Diepeveen 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 > >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? I tried this in EXchess for a while and had the same experience that you did. When I took the bonus out, EXchess got better. I am still surprised that it doesn't work... oh well. - Dan > >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 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.