Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 17:40:02 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 19:50:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 04, 1999 at 22:09:41, Eelco de Groot wrote: > >>Steve: >>Do I understand correctly--for each static evaluation of a single position (leaf >>node, I guess), the program evaluates based on material and positional factors >>without regard to which side is on the move? Then, some programmers like to add >>a bonus for the side to move? >> >>Vincent: >>It's an heuristic that's true in 99% of the positions that my program >>searches obviously. >> >>If a position is bad then usual programs nullmove. If a program nullmoves >>then the other side has the move so gets the bonus. >> >>So the sword cuts on 2 sides. Where you can nullmove normally to prevent >>getting into a worse position, you now suddenly cannot as your opponent >>gets the bonus instead of you. >> >> >>Me: >>Now I have never done any chessprogramming, but it seems fairly straightforward >>to say that you only need to think about such a bonus if you are comparing >>positions with White to move and positions with Black to move, right? >>Intuitively something tells me that is not without dangers. Isn't that a lot >>like comparing apples and pears? Wouldn't it be a lot better if only even plies >>were evaluated if possible? A recent discussion between Ed and Christophe about >>the early Rebel comes to mind... That way you can focus much more on plans , >>weaknesses, etc. of your own. You could save a lot of time time that way! Of >>course you can't ignore the opponent regardless, but you could use a different >>evaluation for uneven plies, looking more for tactical threats for instance? >>That would be relatively safe to do as long as you have the initiative.. >> >>If this isn't possible because of nullmove, isn't that a weakness of normal >>nullmove? Vincent I understand you are working on something you call double >>nullmove and that you are going to publish in ICCA journal about it. Has this >>anything to do with these even/uneven effects. Has double nullmove replaced the >>bonus in Diep? I must confess nullmove is hardly my expertise, but maybe others >>can follow better if you have anything to say about this. >> >>Thanks for any comments, by anybody > >Having a passed pawn can be seen as a risky bonus too. >It might be hung! > It might be well-hung! ;-) Dave
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.