Author: Tony Werten
Date: 12:42:57 06/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2001 at 13:40:42, Frank Phillips wrote: >Fernando > >Yes. I meant net mobility of course (white-black). > >In the simple Othello I wrote a while ago, the number of available moves seemed >crucial to evaluating the worth of a position. I therefore like Dan's >definition that mobility is number of available legal moves. > >Of course, if you are about to deliver mate then one move is enough, no matter >how much mobility your opponent has. Zero, if you deliver mate. :) > >I tried mobility for bishops, as number of free squares, but it was not a great >success and costly to compute. There are obvious case where a bishop on g2 is >valuable despite its limited mobility. As human players maybe we see the >potential mobility (rather than actual), which is why I have been concentrating >on blocked pawns. > >Just wondered how other did it; and whether they did it at all. I think most do it in some sort of way. The simple way is just counting how much moves you have, the more difficult is to take the importance of fields as well in account (centre, close to king etc ) and the most difficult is to only count the fields you "own" (ie if your queen can go to a field where your opponent can take it with it's pawn then you don't own it ) The more difficult, the more time it costs to compute but then again, it does slim down your searchtree. ( computers get faster anyway) > >Tiger fascinates me. It always seems to have good move available. Mine often >gets itself tied in knots. I know the feeling. Specially if my engine plays black. cheers, Tony > >Frank
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.