Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 13:39:23 01/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2002 at 14:36:44, Uri Blass wrote: > >but it is still not clear because the other evaluation stuff is important. > Of course the other evaluation stuff is important. I am not suggesting to cancel all evaluation other than material. I am just saying, instead of having a pawn be 1 and a knight be 3, and then somewhere in evaluation check if you have exchanged a knight for three pawns, then you penalize by, say, 0.5, why not just let the knight have a value of 3.5? I know there are more than one requirement, which is why it isn't trvial. But there still might be a solution. It is basically a linear programming problem. I don't say that material values should cover all sorts of evaluation cases, but material _do_ have values right? And who says that 1,3,3,5,9 is the Unchangeable Truth? If one were to assign values to material in itself in any scientific manner, it would suprise me very much if the values were integral multiplums of whatever pawn unit you use. /David
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.