Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:49:07 05/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 1998 at 11:19:46, Don Dailey wrote: > >>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 I agree. "lack of search depth" is totally immaterial here... the issue was *not* to quantify precise values for the pieces... It was to develop an approach that *can* quantify the values of the pieces. This is all about the "approach" and *not* about the "values" themselves... I suspect that a search depth of infinity might prove that the pawn is the most valuable piece on the board, because it will ultimately promote and become a piece that mates your opponent. That is a depth issue... *not* a paradigm issue here..
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.