Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil S
By what standard can one call a particular move objectively worse? If we know that a more complicated position increases our EV, then if we weigh the benefit of the complication against any other losses that a particular complicating move might bring, then isn't that all that counts?
Is it possible, truly, to separate the value of a move from the setting of the game? That is: the nature of the opponent, the time controls, and other factors?
I thought it was clear that the standard is Rybka's own (normal) evaluation function. Obviously there are many positions where there's no "objectively best" move, because chess is so complex. Even if 90% of GMs think that a particular move is best in a particular position and 10% like a different move, the minority could in theory be right, but we'll never really know. Ultimately only moves which lead to a very clearly won or lost position can be called objective best or worst.
So what we're talking about is how Rybka might adjust (or, rather, be adjusted) for the fact that it not only needs to play good moves, it needs to keep the position complicated. RoundTower suggested that Kasparov is, in all likelihood, much better at pulling off such a balancing act than Rybka could ever be. I agreed, because the task of balancing the need to play good moves against the need to keep the position complicated is a task that is itself much more difficult than chess from an AI perspective.