Author: Albert Silver
Date: 19:02:33 06/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1998 at 15:18:42, Don Dailey wrote:
>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
Piece cooperation? How do you explain to a program that it's pieces are
cooperating?
Albert
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.