Author: Simon Finn
Date: 06:49:15 09/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2001 at 04:27:44, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 29, 2001 at 21:05:58, allan johnson wrote: > >>On September 29, 2001 at 18:02:31, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>PATZER 3.61 - Quark >>>[D]8/6kB/8/6P1/P7/4p3/3bK3/8 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>I wonder what is the reason that patzer evaluated >>>this drawn position as +2.50 for white. >>> >>>Even programs with only material evaluation can see only +1 >>>for white. >>> >>>What is the reason for 1.5 pawns positional bonus? >>> >>>Uri >> Uri: Perhaps the programmer did not include rules about end games when the >>bishops are on opposite colours? >>Al > >even without rules for opposite bishop the question still remain >What is the reason for 1.5 pawns positional bonus. > >I do not think that a dustance passed pawn justifies 1.5 pawn positional bonus. Move the other White pawn from g5 to g4: [D]8/6kB/8/8/P5P1/4p3/3bK3/8 w - - 0 1 Now White appears to be winning after (for example) 1. Be4 Kf6 2. Kd3 Ke5 3. Bf3 Kd6 4. Kc4 Kc7 5. Kb5 Bc3 6. a5 etc. I guess that it's very difficult to write an evaluation function that recognises the key difference between the two positions (the White pawn is too vulnerable on g5). Simon > >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.