Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 04:21:54 08/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 2002 at 06:43:31, Uri Blass wrote: >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with all respect but your table is outdated in advance.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). I see. That way you disagree with Vincent AND me, although we have opposing opinions. Typical :-) >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. I don't think so. Crafty is reasonably accurate in that respect. Bas.
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.