Author: Normand M. Blais
Date: 18:17:59 04/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2001 at 18:20:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 09, 2001 at 16:49:21, Normand M. Blais wrote: > >>On April 09, 2001 at 16:21:56, Andrei Fortuna wrote: >> >> >>>positional score > 2 PAWN_VALUE. And that will hurt my quiescence and my >>>futility pruning if I assume that 2*PAWN_VALUE is max positional score. It all >>>boils down to the magnitude of the positional scores versus pawn value, I think >>>I have to choose either to keep big bonuses and turn futility off (or set a >>>bigger margin for futility but in that case it would make futility more >>>inefficient) or keep small bonuses and enjoy the reductions I get from futility >>>and quiescence. >> >>What if you multiply the value of the material by 10 (i.e. pawn = 1000 Knight = >>3000 Bishop = 3000 Rook = 5000 Queen = 10000 ) and keep the positional score as >>it is. >> >>N.M.B. > > >Then you become _very_ materialistic. You will grab pawns whenever >possible, even if it wrecks your king position. You will grab a pawn but >leave your opponent with an outside passer that wins. Etc... I understand that the positional score is related to the material score (the pawn or tempi being the unit of measurement). I made a mistake by suggesting that the material value can be magnified without adjusting both the positional bonuses and penalties. But would it be a good idea to have one more digit to work with? A value of 1000, for instance, could represent 100.0. And scores like 112.4 and 112.8 could be set apart? Not a sophisticated idea but anyhow. Regards, N.M.B.
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.