Author: Tim Foden
Date: 07:41:30 10/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2001 at 10:11:36, Paul wrote: >On October 04, 2001 at 07:03:14, Tim Foden wrote: > >>Hi All, >> >>I decided that I would add a 2nd SEE to GLC to check whether GLC's SEE was >>working. I actually ported GCP's Sjeng SEE (that was posted to the forum a >>while ago). >> >>Both SEE routines now agree in most curcumstances, but one's like the following >>have cropped up (where they disagree): >> >>[D]5rk1/1pp2R1p/p1pb4/6q1/3P1p2/2P4r/PP1BQ1P1/5RKN w - - 2 0 >> >>This can be evaluated in 2 ways... >> >>(1) BxP (+1000) BxB (-3500) R1xB (+3500) QxR (-5500) RxQ (+10000) RxR (-5500) >>.........+1000.......-2500........+1000.......-4500........+5500...........0 >> >>>>> value = 0 >> >>(2) BxP (+1000) BxB (-3500) R7xB (+3500) RxR (-5500) RxR (+5500) QxR (-5500) >>.........+1000.......-2500........+1000.......-4500.......+1000.......-4500 >> >>>>> value = -2500 >> >>So... on to the questions: >> >>a) Does anyone's SEE do anything intelligent in these cases? >> >>b) Is one of these right, and the other wrong? If so, which one? >> >>c) Do we actually care, as long as the SEE works in the majority of cases? >> >>Cheers, Tim. > >I haven't studied SEE yet, but shouldn't (2) also result in a value = 0, since >you don't have to take the pawn being white? I mean, you start with a value of >0, right? Yes, you start with a value of 0. In this particular case I think that (1) above is best. But should a SEE routine care? I mean... maybe this kind of thing doesn't occur often enough to worry about. I'm not sure about this, so I'm asking questions to see if anyone else has a better idea. Cheers, Tim.
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.