Author: Paul
Date: 07:11:36 10/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2001 at 07:03:14, Tim Foden wrote: >Hi All, > >I decided that I would add a 2nd SEE to GLC to check whether GLC's SEE was >working. I actually ported GCP's Sjeng SEE (that was posted to the forum a >while ago). > >Both SEE routines now agree in most curcumstances, but one's like the following >have cropped up (where they disagree): > >[D]5rk1/1pp2R1p/p1pb4/6q1/3P1p2/2P4r/PP1BQ1P1/5RKN w - - 2 0 > >This can be evaluated in 2 ways... > >(1) BxP (+1000) BxB (-3500) R1xB (+3500) QxR (-5500) RxQ (+10000) RxR (-5500) >.........+1000.......-2500........+1000.......-4500........+5500...........0 > >>>> value = 0 > >(2) BxP (+1000) BxB (-3500) R7xB (+3500) RxR (-5500) RxR (+5500) QxR (-5500) >.........+1000.......-2500........+1000.......-4500.......+1000.......-4500 > >>>> value = -2500 > >So... on to the questions: > >a) Does anyone's SEE do anything intelligent in these cases? > >b) Is one of these right, and the other wrong? If so, which one? > >c) Do we actually care, as long as the SEE works in the majority of cases? > >Cheers, Tim. I haven't studied SEE yet, but shouldn't (2) also result in a value = 0, since you don't have to take the pawn being white? I mean, you start with a value of 0, right? Paul
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.