Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 23:19:14 02/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2003 at 17:14:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 24, 2003 at 17:05:27, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>What are the important exceptions to the (1,3,3,5,9) when evaluating _only_ the >>material situation? >> >>/David > >I think that using 1 3 3 5 9 is a bad idea. > >I have 64*6 numbers(numbers are also for the king) because I have values >for piece and square and not only for piece >(king and square also get a value). > >I have different numbers for the king in the endgame. > >I see no reason to calculate the value of the piece and to add later the piece >square table when it is possible to do it in one step. > Orthogonality of concepts. Material usually expresses the long term idea of a material situation being superior or equal etc. (to assess trades, for example), while the piece square table involves average mobility and maybe other factors. I wan to to separate the two decisions: 1) that a trade is bad, even though it "seems" to be equal (n+b vs. r+p for example), and 2) that a knight is badly posted on the corner. They are different concepts. Of course, both should be taken into account. I just prefer not mix everything up in one big evaluation term. I strive for orthogonality. /David
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.