Author: martin fierz
Date: 16:30:51 08/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 2002 at 08:16:30, Vincent Diepeveen 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with all respect but your table is outdated in advance.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. > >KQ KRR is an endgame database. obviously, he was talking about KQ KRR and pawns on the board. >In the average position, and as we know the vaste majority of all 10^43 >positions which chess has is middlegame, up to the late endgame, the >queen is provable better as it is much better in capturing the >random pieces that are laid down at the board. > >Queen = 11.5 >rook = 5.0 > >in the *random* case. which is totally irrelevant. since in the majority of all real chess positions, pieces are not randomly laid down on the board for the queen to capture. your eval of queen = 11.5 and rook = 5.0 is completely wrong for any normal position. the queen is typically weaker than two rooks, if they are not badly miscoordinated. aloha martin
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.