Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:20:23 09/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2000 at 12:02:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 27, 2000 at 10:49:13, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 27, 2000 at 10:39:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >><snipped> >>>Which piece square tables? >>>piece square tables won't help you much as they don't tell you the >>>king is without protection at the other side of the board. >>> >>>Diep is evaluating this as +1.151 for black, it sees the mate in 1 in >>>its qsearch however, so not even 1 ply needed to see mate in 1 here :) >> >>You are right that piece square tables do not tell that the king is without >>protection but the point is that I believe that in most of the cases when the >>king go to these squares it is without protection. >> >>I agree that it is better to see it by evaluation without piece square >>tables(for example you can see that there are no pawn near the white king) but I >>believe that if programs do not see it by better king safety evaluation then >>they can at least use better piece square tables >> >>I saw that the position was the end of the main line of Yace and a better >>evaluation could help Yace to avoid the mistake. >> >>Uri > > >So you think yace isn't doing more as a piece square table evaluation? > >Programmer will be delighted hearing that i bet :) I did not say that yace does not do more than piece square table. I am not the programmer of yace and I do not know what yace do. I said that I think that better piece square table without changing the evaluation can help. I did not say that there is no better solution. Uri
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.