Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 16:39:48 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 18:21:39, Sune Fischer wrote:
>On May 05, 2004 at 17:47:08, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
>
>>The overhead of adding this should be very little (I did not measure it,
>>however). I already have some ifs in eval, where non pawn positions are
>>detected, and somwhere inside this, only one further if had to be added.
>
>Why do you use special code for this endgame?
Out of curiosity. Also, because Tord specifically asked for this. My normal code
got a draw only from that maximum mate position in game in one minute (although
it won your position). Game in 2 minutes, it won.
>[FEN "8/4kr2/8/8/8/2Q5/2K5/8 w - - 0 1"]
This is a bit easier, than the position I used. Out of more curiosity, I changed
the formula again (just from my feeling).
score = 600 + 5*DISTANCE(kl,r) - 20*EDGE_DIST(kl)
- 10*CORNER_DIST(kl) - 15*DISTANCE(kl,kw);
if (EDGE_DIST(kw) < 2) /* Keep winning K away from the edge */
score += 8 * (EDGE_DIST(kw)-2);
if (CORNER_DIST(kw) < 2) /* Keep winning K away from the corner */
score += 8 * (CORNER_DIST(kw)-2);
With this, a fixed search depth of 6 (+ normal extensions, also using normal
null move R=2 as long as both pieces are on the board) was enough to win the
maximum mate position I gave in an earlier post against TBs. The previous
formula needed a search depth of 8. But it could also be noise, what I saw, and
with other positions, other results will occure.
I won't doubt, that your general scoring of pawnless endgames is just as good
(mine was not).
Regards,
Dieter
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.