Author: Johanes Suhardjo
Date: 10:15:04 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 1998 at 17:40:21, Don Dailey wrote:
>But the "bad bishop" is not quite the same as a bishop lacking
>mobility. Our bishop was not "bad" in this sense. The classical
>definition is that your bishop is highly restricted behind a
>pawn on e3 or d3 (if you are white.) It can be bad in other
>cases but I think this is the common case. It's more a statement
>of it being undeveloped, and very difficult to get developed.
The reason I'm looking at bad/good bishop is that I want to speed up my
program and one place to reduce work is to get rid of bishop mobility
code (besides, Bob Hyatt often says that it's clear whether mobility
is the cause or the effect of good positions). Well, looks like this
is a problem I have to experiment with.
Thanks to all who responded!
Johanes Suhardjo (johanes@farida.cc.nd.edu)
--
Paradise is exactly like where you are right now ... only much, much
better.
-- Laurie Anderson
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.