Author: Don Dailey
Date: 12:18:42 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 13:15:04, Johanes Suhardjo wrote: >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 That's exactly my reasoning too, I did not want the count squares type of mobility. So I used the 6th rank attacking definition I mentioned. Also I have a counting rule for colors of pawns. Friendly pawns on the same color hurt the bishop, but enemy pawns on the same color are good. Our rules weight one case more than the other though. Other than a small general centralization and advancement bonus, that's all we have. Of course we also have piece cooperation terms but this applies to the material value as a more general case. - 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.