TalkChess.com

tissatussa wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:45 pm Clear, but HOW do all engines evaluate?

There's a ton of information on the chess programming wiki.

What's your comment on the screenshots in the linked ZIP?

Probably that if you want anyone to care about a screenshot, you should not pack it into a zip file. Second, that you are way off topic for the thread as far as I can see.

this one is with classical music : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2JcvR0tb2I
patterns and timing

@Sesse - Why keep pointing to commonly used depth-search methods and evalution functions when those do not seem to be able to find the proper "best move" of my diagram? It's rather obvious for a human being this move has to be considered. So, better look for other approaches to evaluate a position.

I'd hoped someone comes up with a fresh evaluation idea. Don't be rigid by "here is how evaluations are done", because that doesn't seem to work in this position. Try to think out of the box and replace the existing methods, like Leela does in her way. I just put the video's here to get inspiration for that.

About the screenshots in the ZIP file : why does TalkChess limit the total size of uploaded images to 2 Mb? The screenshots are full screen. When you're intersted you could easily open the ZIP file, which i used as an alternative.

so, regarding my FEN position, where i state b4! should be the best move, it seems that most engines judge at first not to consider this move to be in the top 20 of MultiPV. However a human can see the Bc5 is overstretched : when it captures the b4 pawn, the square g1 is no longer covered and White can play Rg1! and reach a good (?!) attacking position, although a pawn is lost .. How does the engine evaluate ? Does it only count material ? I guess modern engines do not. It's all about options, therefor all pieces should be on "good squares" .. i guess you know what i mean, as a chess player .. so, what is a "good square" ? As i stated, the asmFish engine finds b4! within 20 MultiPV, and is rather fast. It's calculation / evaluation / judging which move will be in the top # MultiPV / seems different.

How does an engine evaluate any position ? You can point me to the existing tree search methods and "the way evaluation works", but can we try to create alternative evaluation scores ? Eg.

amount of pawns
amount of double pawns
amount of squares a piece can reach in a concerning position

amount of squares a piece can reach in a concerning position, as a percentage of the max (according to our chess rules), for example:
max_square( piece=Knight, square=e5) is 8
max_square( piece=Knight, square=a1) is 2

regarding pawn structure : how many rows for each pawn to promote
regarding the pieces Bishop, Rook and Queen, which can all move a long range, we should consider all the squares in between the from-square and the to-square : some kind of "pressure" factor for each square should exist (occupied by some piece, the line is blocked).
etc.


Some engines introduce some King Safety factor .. is this alike ?
I think i understand the general coding of an engine, with (recursive) depth etc., but i never build one.

Many test FEN positions exist, but how can a programmer use the output to tune and code new parameters to create a (more) suitable evaluation ? Now, you can tell me about min-max etc. but what about alternative evaluation scores in the first place ..

Who can elaborate on that ?

[ some new patterns .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crgEYMsg7sY ]

You might look here:

https://hxim.github.io/Stockfish-Evaluation-Guide/

tissatussa wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:47 pm so, regarding my FEN position, where i state b4! should be the best move

You state that without any proof. It does not seem to be correct.

it seems that most engines judge at first not to consider this move to be in the top 20 of MultiPV.

I don't know why you think it seems so.

How does the engine evaluate ? Does it only count material ?

Why do you bother asking such questions if you don't like the answers?

How does an engine evaluate any position ? You can point me to the existing tree search methods and "the way evaluation works", but can we try to create alternative evaluation scores ? Eg.

amount of pawns
amount of double pawns
amount of squares a piece can reach in a concerning position

Engines already do this and much more.

You should read more and write less.

@Sesse:
i wrote:

it seems that most engines judge at first not to consider this move to be in the top 20 of MultiPV.

you wrote:

I don't know why you think it seems so.

And I don't know why you are still not aware b4! is only evaluated when this move is in the top 20+ MultiPV (and depth is high enough). Try it, especially with my FEN position. When existing evaluation methods obviously fail, we should tune parameters to get a better evaluation, that's obvious i think. Never mind.

tissatussa wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:33 pm And I don't know why you are still not aware b4! is only evaluated when this move is in the top 20+ MultiPV (and depth is high enough).

I'm “not aware” of it because it's obviously not true. At MultiPV 5, it shows up already at d25… as the fourth best move.

When existing evaluation methods obviously fail

They don't “obviously fail”, because b4 is not the best move in the position. You can write it with an exclamation mark all you want, but there's no good reason to believe why it should be the best one. (Furthermore, if it really were the best move, you could just as well argue it's a search failure, not an evaluation failure.)

At MultiPV 5, it shows up already at d25… as the fourth best move.

i think b4! should soon (after a small depth) be in the top # MultiPV list when alternative evaluation values are used / developed. Do all engines show b4! at d25 when MultiPV is 5 ? I guess their evaluation top # will be different. But the move b4! should be considered at a possible best move and so given a high priority for deeper search. Are you a chess player ? What is your ELO ? Mine is 1870 (in Holland). Did you see the videos ? They show that positional play gives certain (and most of the times, a very few) moves to continue the idea of harmony in the piece team - it's a war game of options, the execution comes later ..

They don't “obviously fail”, because b4 is not the best move in the position.

It should be in top # MultiPV from start.

I hope you get my point now. I think you're too rigid in following the existing, known brute force methods.

I think it is unclear what the best move is. It is not certain that b4 is the best move. It is not certain that b4 is not the best move.

I guess that with optimal play, this position is drawn, but it is a rather complex position, so it is hard to be sure.