Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 13:21:30 05/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1998 at 10:03:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: - snip - >I'm not a big believer in mobility, based on years of experimentation >with >it. It is not clear to me whether mobility is a *cause* of winning a >game >or a *result* of winning. You do *not* want to evaluate "result" terms, >or >else you'd see something like "in the last 10 games where Brett Favre >was >hurt in the 4th quarter of an NFL game, Green Bay *won*." We need to >win >this game badly, so you linemen don't block and let's get Brett hurt so >we >can win. Logic is wrong of course... one easy example in chess is >moves like >a4-a5 or h4-h5, which increase the mobility of the rook, but which also >disrupt or weaken the pawn that moved,plus the squares that it helps >defend... > >I think that you have to rely on search for some of this, and on >evaluation >for the parts that you can clearly evaluate... I don't use mobility either, but have been thinking of using 'lack of mobility'. When mobility is below some certain treshold the program starts to penalize for lack of mobility to prevent it from going into cramped positions. That would be more useful than just trying to get more space in general. Haven't tried it yet, however. //Peter
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.