Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 03:11:17 09/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2000 at 15:19:58, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >On September 09, 2000 at 12:33:08, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On September 09, 2000 at 08:44:57, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >> >>>On September 09, 2000 at 02:13:19, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On September 08, 2000 at 19:05:20, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >>>> >>>>>just for fun, can you do a search with your program in the initial position? >>>>> >>>>>rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>here is for amyan, unrealistic evals? 1/3 of a pawn just for one piece more >>>>>developed hum... may be better something a bit exponential? >>>>> >>>>>[2] -0.01 87 e2e4 e7e5 >>>>>[3] +0.35 426 e2e4 g8f6 b1c3 >>>>>[4] -0.01 2021 d2d4 d7d5 g1f3 g8f6 >>>>>[5] +0.32 7746 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 g8f6 b1c3 >>>>>[6] +0.12 24010 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 g8f6 f1c4 b8c6 >>>>>[7] +0.30 63896 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 g8f6 b1c3 b8c6 d2d4 e5d4 f3d4 >>>>>[8] +0.16 282830 e2e4 e7e5 g1f3 g8f6 f1c4 f6e4 d2d3 e4d6 f3e5 >>>>>[9] +0.27 1086340 e2e4 e7e6 b1c3 g8f6 g1e2 f8b4 e4e5 f6d5 d2d4 >>>>> >>>>>just me. >>> >>>hello >>> >>>>Theoretically it should be about 1/6th of a pawn. If White is 1/3rd of a pawn >>>>better than "even", then Black is 1/3rd of a pawn worse than "even" or in other >>>>words, White is 2/3rds of a pawn better than Black, which can't be right. >>> >>>no, +1/3 for white means white is 1/3 of a pawn better than black. >> >>Are you sure? Lets say I am White. We are in the beginning position. I have the >>advantage, since it is my turn to move. Now if I drop a tempo, then it is now >>you who are effectively playing White and now you have the advantage. >> >>This different from the situation of my being a pawn up. Now If I drop a clear >>pawn, you do not assume the advantage of being a pawn up. The material is now >>equal. I would have to drop 2 pawns for the roles to be reversed. Do you see how >>it is different? >> > >Hi Ricardo, > your reasoning is wrong! But since you are a very smart guy fully capable of >finding out why, I will not spoil it for you. >José. When I said: "With the eval oscillating with odd or even depth, you should be getting a ½ tempo better on odd ply and zero on even ply. You're showing instead about 1 tempo better on even ply and about a ½ tempo better on odd ply." This was incorrect. I retract that now, but I see nothing wrong with the rest. > >>Now consider what happens when White wins a clear pawn. His advantage of the >>move does not disappear, he then has the pawn PLUS the advantage of being White. >>If he were only exactly a pawn up, White would have to drop a ½ tempo. Do you >>now see why some say a pawn is worth about 2½ tempos? I think it is worth about >>3, but I can see why there is the alternative interpretation. >> >>>very ugly speak this way about chess anyway :) >>> >>>>With White being 1/6th of a pawn better than "even", then Black is 1/6th of a >>>>pawn worse than even, so now White is now 1/3rd of a pawn better than Black, >>>>which is what you would expect. I remember some guy on ICC reported .17 with one >>>>of the commercial programs, which is consistent with 1/6th of a pawn. >>> >>>.17 doens't seem rare, i will implement an exponential function for development >>>and also for king danger patterns. May be the average between x and x^2, or >>>something like that. >>> >>>>With the eval oscillating with odd or even depth, you should be getting a ½ >>>>tempo better on odd ply and zero on even ply. You're showing instead about 1 >>>>tempo better on even ply and about a ½ tempo better on odd ply. >>> >>>hey, in the initial position white plays and wins! >>>ok I get it but is not so simple. >>> >>>>All this assumes a pawn is worth 3 tempos, but some would say it is worth only >>>>2½ pawns. Take your pick. >>> >>>mmmh...
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.