Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 12:01:18 01/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2002 at 14:52:08, Antonio Dieguez wrote: That's potential mobility, and it's not very useful since it would give the same mobility value to entombed pieces as it would to a piece with it's full potential mobility. Potential mobility can be used as an estimate for material piece values in the endgame when most pieces are near full mobility on an open board, but other than that, this isn't very useful. > >look at what you wrote: > >a. counting... >b. counting... >c. counting... > >most chess programmers assess mobility counting a numbers of squares, and then >multipling or doing an array look up? > >since when I wrote mobility from the first time i use >(with the only difference that they are in spanish of course :)) > >mobilityBishop[] >mobilityRookNS[] >mobilityRookWE[] > >so instead of a ++ or something while looping I do, for example for bishops: >mobility+=mobilityBishop[i]; > >of course mobilityBishop[i] is bigger when i is closer the center. > >By the way I have anothers: > >atacabilityBishop[][] >etc. > >and in the second entry i put also the enemy king. Very cool. > > > >>In an evaluation function, it makes sense to count >>and reward attacks to occupied and free squares. >>However, this can be done in several ways. >>Currently, I have the following data available >>and I assign bonus points for all these three >>count results: >> >>a. counting each square that I attack >> at most once, regardless of the number of >> attackers and defenders for that square. >> >>b. counting all my attacks to squares, so this >> count is 2 for a square if both my knight and >> my bishop (and no other pieces of mine) attack it. >> >>c. counting all squares that I control in the >> sense that I attack it with a given piece >> and the opponent defends it only with >> more expensive pieces. For example, I regard >> a square in my control if I attack it with a pawn >> (and possibly other pieces as well), while the >> opponent may defend it with as many >> non-pawn pieces as he likes. >> >>If you have a opinion (preferably based on experience >>and chess knowledge) about the relative merits of >>these counts in an eval function, please indicate >>this by giving weight factors. >>For example: >>c 3, a 1, b 0 (if you regard b as useless). >>(I hope your answer will not be a 0, b 0, c 0 -;) >> >>Leen
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.