Author: Rafael Andrist
Date: 09:58:09 06/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2001 at 17:34:56, Uri Blass wrote: >>>I believe that your program overevaluate pawns so you may try to reduce the >>>value of pawns. >> >>Yes, I know that I give a little bit to big bonuses for passers etc. The pawn >>value itself is not the problem. I don't think that a bishop is really more >>worth than 3 pawns. > >I believe that a bishop in most of the cases worth more than 3 pawns(3 pawns may >draw often against a bishop but they also may lose often against a bishop and >cases when they can win are rare if there are no advanced passed pawns but in >this case your program may see other positional bonuses). > >I know that one of the changes in Junior6 relative to Junior5 was to reduce the >value of the pawn. > >I guess that giving pawns and passed pawns 80% of the value that you give them >can help your program to get better results in games. > >Uri In an endgame PPP vs. B in most of the cases the side with the pawns will win. - if the pawns are connected, you have no chance to stop them - if they aren't connected and not all on wrong lines (The bishop doesn't control the promotion field) the side with the pawns will win too or at least draw, because the opponent king and bishop can't stop all the pawns. In situations with more pieces on the board, a bishop can be stronger than 3 pawns but I don't think that stronger enough to win. If I would simply reduce the pawn values, my program would also often sacrifice pawns for positional reasons. I now plan to give the passers values that highly depend on the situation on the board (until now I did only distinguish between opening, middlegame, endgame and pawn endgame). Thanks for your comments Rafael B. Andrist
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.