Author: Koundinya Veluri
Date: 12:25:53 10/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2001 at 14:54:36, Tim Foden wrote: >On October 05, 2001 at 13:24:57, Koundinya Veluri wrote: > >In my other reply I misread your comments, and thought that you meant that >*both* of the sequences should have a score of -2500. Sorry about that. > >>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 >> >>My SEE doesn't differentiate between the two different methods. It actually >>returns -200 (-2000 in your case) and when I traced it, I found this: >> >>BxP (+100) BxB (-300) >>.....+100.......-200 >> >>It stops there because it sees that capturing with a rook would lead to more >>losses (it assumes the second case, where black captures with the rook first). >>So the second case should really be terminated after BxP BxB, which would result >>in a score around -200 (or -2000). > ^^^^ == -2500 (which is the score after BxB) > >I agree. that is why I said the second sequence had a score of -2500 (see >below). The reason the whole sequence is given above is just for illustrative >purposes. Sorry, missed that line :) > >>Koundinya >> >>> >>>>>> 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.
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.