Author: Will Singleton
Date: 06:55:27 01/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2002 at 09:01:50, David Rasmussen wrote: >There must be a value system of material that takes care of all special cases. > >1,3,3,5,9: > >Has the following problems: >3 pawns for bishop or knight is almost always a bad idea. >2 knights/bishops for rook and pawn is almost always a bad idea. >2 rooks for queen is often not a good idea. >3 knights/bishops for a queens is often not a good idea. Then again, often it is >:) > >What is your best bet? > >/David P 100 N 392 B 424 R 620 Q 1260 This wasn't a plan, just sort of changed over time. I actually haven't looked at these in awhile, but it's always an interesting question. Somebody ought to come up with a test suite designed to test the various situations you mentioned, for static analysis. Mine looks like it would fail the 2 minors for the rook/pawn. Will
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.