Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:35:56 02/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2004 at 13:45:42, Tord Romstad wrote: >On February 05, 2004 at 13:31:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I disagree. your approach doesn't catch all cases either. The one I gave >>previously is one example. with pawns at f7 g6 and h7, a rook on the g-file is >>not a serious threat unless you push your own f and h pawns to try to attack >>that g-pawn. But once it goes away we both notice it is good. So we both are >>going to miss some things, and it is just a matter of picking which you like >>best. I didn't choose to not do mobility for rooks because of the cost. I >>didn't like some of the moves it produces. IE unnecessary pawn advances, or not >>liking rooks side-by-side because they interfere with mobility, etc... > >It seems to me that the real problem was that your rook mobility evaluation >was too primitive. If done right, evaluating rook mobility shouldn't >usually cause unnecessary pawn advances. Such advances would give the rook >a few more squares to move to, but these squares will typically not be >very useful for the rook, and therefore shouldn't increase the rook >mobility eval (at least not by much). The important thing is how many >important squares the rook is able to reach or attack quickly without losing >material, and not the total number of squares the rook attacks. All squares >are not equal. > >Rooks side by side also shouldn't interfere with mobility. X-ray >attacks should be considered as part of the mobility eval. > >Tord I can think of a dozen exceptions. Rook at e1, bishop at f1, but the bishop at f1 can't move as my pawn at g2 is attacked twice by my opponent. Etc... I simply hope the search is up to sorting those kinds of details out, where years ago I had to evaluate them due to the shallow search depths we were getting.
This page took 0.01 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.