Author: Normand M. Blais
Date: 13:17:55 04/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 21, 2001 at 09:31:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 20, 2001 at 15:49:33, Normand M. Blais wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>I'm using the following: >> >>#define ENDING \ >>((pawn_mat[side]+pawn_mat[xside] <= 1200) && \ >>(piece_num[side]+piece_num[xside] <= 5)) >> >> >>Assuming a value of 1000 for a pawn and that the kings or the pawns are not >>counted as a pieces for "piece_num", is the expression above correct? >> >>Thank you for your help. >> >>NMB > I'll follow your advice. Many thanks. NMB > >You _really_ don't want to do this in an evaluation. It will give you a >serious "boundary effect" where the eval has significant changes around some >boundary in the game. In this case, around the point where you decide whether >it is still a middlegame or an endgame. You want a _smooth_ transition from >MG to EG, not an abrupt change. The program will search around that boundary >and produce some very bizarre results... > >I simply phase MG eval terms out as material comes off, and phase EG eval >terms in at the same time. But it is gradual rather than an abrupt change >around some magic material boundary...
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.