Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:43:31 08/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 2002 at 05:37:32, Bas Hamstra wrote: >On August 13, 2002 at 15:18:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 13, 2002 at 07:23:38, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>My definition for a sacrifice or blunder >>>is a move that lose material based on >>>the depth that programs can see. >>> >>>The definition of losing material is based on >>>the material values 1,3,3,5,9. >> >>with all respect but your table is outdated in advance. >> >> a) 2 rooks are weaker than a queen in 99.9% of all cases >> the computer sees 2 rooks for a queen > >With all the respect master, but this is an ancient point of view that does not >hold for computerchess at all. Two rooks can capture an isolated pawn and one >sole queen cannot prevent that. I say it's about even. Try to play an endgame >with a queen versus 2 rooks, with Diep against Tiger or Gandalf. > >Best regards, >Bas. I do not think that this is an ancient point of view(the opposite and the opinion is a new opinion that I find to be wrong). Beginners usually learn that queen=9 and Rook=5. The values are not exactly correct but queen is equal less than 2 rooks. There are cases when the rooks cannot work together but these cases are the excption and they should be identified by evaluation. I think that the opinion of Bob Hyatt and Vincent Diepveen is wrong and maybe wrong material values is one of the reasons for the relative bad result of Crafty in the 1th division of Leo. It may be interesting to get an epd file of positions from comp-comp games when one side did a move that give it queen for 2 rooks or the opposite. I think that in cases that the side with the queen won it is possible to find big positinal adavantage for that side by the right evaluation. Uri
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.