Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 08:35:22 02/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2000 at 11:02:28, Steve Coladonato wrote: >Given a position, let's say at move 19 for white, the computer program will >evaluate it and return either a numeric or symbolic evaluation and a variation >that is considered best for both sides. Also, let's say that at the position >for the next to last move in the variation that is returned, say move 22 for >white, that in actuality four ply beyond that, move 26 for white, there is a >refutation of the complete variation. The outcome being that the suggested >variation is not good at all. This would probably be discovered at move 21 for >white, but in the interim, the player is being directed down a bad line. Given >all that, my question is does this really happen in an evaluation of a position >and if so, how is it handled? I can understand that if the program "learns" >that it probably would not choose this variation again. But even then how far >back does it need to go to correct the line? > >Please disregard errors in the ply count. > >Steve I've yet to see a program learn from this. All programs suffer from this problem, it is known as the horizon effect. Do you know any program which learns from this? I guess the easiest solution is to edit the opening book, and mark the variation as bad so that the engine will completely avoid the position before it arrives to that crucial position. On the other hand, if you set up a position then how will the engine learn from it. From a human perspective, it can be a trap for those who depends too much on computer evaluation, and then the human player complains that the engine sucks because it mis-evaluated the position completely. Hence, there's still a lot of improvements to made for chess engines, and they still got a long road to climb. Laurence
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.