> > I think it depends on how you define "smarter". Is that like "more > > intelligent" ? > What I mean is that the evaluation function is of better quality - knows > more about chess in some sense.
Unfortunately, "better" in the case of chess evaluation is about as clear as better in the sense of playouts. Let me refer you to an excellent post made on the Talkchess forum by Tord Romstad: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=135133&t=15504 A quote which sums up the problem: "Fruit's evaluation function is actually very good. It is true that there are many programs with more knowledgeable evals, but as explained above, this is not the same as better evals. Fruit's evaluation is founded on a sound philosophy, and has very few bugs. This is far more important than how much knowledge it contains." As the amount of knowledge (i.e. heuristics) goes up, the interdependence between them skyrockets. With different depths, you also have different interactions between the parameters, from things like side to move, total material, etc. This makes it pretty complicated to make a solid conclusion about the trend. I'd agree with your explanation, however.
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
