Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Chess program improvement project (copy at Winboard::Programming)

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 00:02:17 03/07/06

Go up one level in this thread


On March 07, 2006 at 00:46:27, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On March 07, 2006 at 00:41:55, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On March 07, 2006 at 00:34:48, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>
>>>On March 07, 2006 at 00:31:45, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>On March 07, 2006 at 00:27:43, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>>Very interesting indeed. A clever test.
>>>>>
>>>>>If one's results do not rotate approximately as described
>>>>>for the four positions and you say the evaluation is an
>>>>>issue, what kinds of evaluation issues have you seen that
>>>>>could explain it?!?
>>>>
>>>>The most common thing that I see is something that is good for white being
>>>>counted as positive for black also on the evaluation.  Often, when we are
>>>>writing the eval, we are thinking from the perspective of white. And so if we
>>>>are not very careful, we may invert the sign of some evaluation component and
>>>>count something that is good for white as something that is good for black (or
>>>>vice versa, though the reverse is seen less often for some reason).
>>>>
>>>>There are, of course, many other possible causes besides that.
>>>
>>>A good point. I try to avoid that by always doing things from the
>>>side on move, almost always. There are a few in there however with
>>>respect to white and black specifically, but they are then folded
>>>together with the stm variable and stm^1 which translate to white/black
>>>or black/white depending on who's on move. I could try this: rerun
>>>your rotation test with successively less in the evaluation table
>>>until nothing but material and see what happens.
>>
>>Right.  If you have divided off the eval components, you could binary search
>>until you find the problem component.
>>
>>Now, we do not know for sure that it is an eval sign problem.  However, the fact
>>that the records are similar in pairs makes it very suspicious.
>
>I guess that when you have gotten your eval symmetrical, you will miss less than
>ten problems on WAC.

I think that you are wrong here.
Stuart may have evaluation bugs but his main problem is the search.

Uri



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.