Author: Don Dailey
Date: 08:19:46 05/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
>The 1,3,3,5,9 ratio has stood the test of time ... Has it really? I don't think anyone believes these numbers are correct. They are simply understood to be as close as you can get using integer values with the pawn being a single unit. > with the only other >significant one that I have seen is the one by Larry Kaufmann who put it >at 3,10,10,15,29 3=pawn 29 = queen with the 2 bishops =21 This is based on the same observation. Me and Larry discussed this stuff at length and he came up with these values as an improvement over the traditional ones. His reasoning was to find the lowest possible "resolution" that made sense. He didn't like quarters, where a pawn is 4 points and decided "thirds" was a pretty reasonable scale. We were designing a program at the time and decided 96 would be the value for a pawn, a number with lot's of divisors (3 being one of them) and close enough to 100 that it would be easy to talk about. Of course we were probably being a little "anal" but we like to be precise! >These point counts are important and I didn't question the experiment >itself. I simply questioned the lack of search depth for a chess >experiment that purports to come up with a different point count and >pass this point count off as maybe more accurate than the historical >one. Read your post, you called the experiment flawed (not the results.) I don't think he was trying to pass off a new system either. Anyway, this exchange has been good, it clarifies the way you actually see the experiment and it's results which were not obvious from your original post. - Don
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.