Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:00:01 11/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2001 at 23:55:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >On November 13, 2001 at 23:51:33, Chessfun wrote: > >>On November 13, 2001 at 23:08:14, Robert Randolph wrote: >> >>>I am currently working on writing a new evaluation for my program.. I have been >>>contemplating an eval based on positional aspects and no direct material count. >>> >>>For instance, a white knight on H1 would be worth maybe .2, but a white knight >>>on E5 would be worth 3.2 Of course these are my actual eval values, but examples >>>to better iillustrate my idea. >>> >>>Has this been done before with any success, or lack there of? >>> >>>If it was a plausible idea (as i beleive it could be) what would your >>>suggestions be for positional advantages and disadvantages in this system, as >>>they would be fairly differing than those of evals that also rely on material >>>count. >>> >>>-Robert >> >> >>TSCP Tom's simple chess program eval.c seems to address this >>by adding the value of the location of the piece. >> >>If you have a look at eval.c you'll see the square value's >>Tom used. >> >>Although Tom's website >>http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~kerrigat/ appears to be down. >> >>This isn't exactly what your saying, it seems to be >>a similar idea. > >Try here: >http://home.earthlink.net/~tckjr/ Thanks Dann shows how long ago I downloaded it. But I guess at least I remembered some of what I'd read. >Lots of programs have a similar idea in use. I suspect that the value is an >artifact of shallow searches, but I might be wrong about that. I'm sure a lot use this idea as it seems a natural one. But it may give him some idea as to the value of each square. Sarah.
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.