Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 00:52:29 01/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2002 at 00:23:08, Russell Reagan wrote: >On January 20, 2002 at 16:21:02, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On January 20, 2002 at 15:38:45, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>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. >>>in the middlegame, yes, in the endgame no. >>> >>>>2 knights/bishops for rook and pawn is almost always a bad idea. >>>in the middlegame yes, in the endgame, maybe not, if the rook has a passer. >>> >>>>2 rooks for queen is often not a good idea. >>>not at all, except if the queen can mate you. >>> >>>>3 knights/bishops for a queens is often not a good idea. Then again, often it is >>>>:) >>>it is a good idea more often than not. >>> >>>all these things are heavily dependent on the rest of the material on the board. >>>i don't think you have a chance... >>> >>>cheers >>> >>> martin >> >>I am not talking about things that depend on a lot of other stuff. Evaluation >>should take care of this. I am talking about Crafty that explicitly checks for >>some material special cases _and nothing else on the board_, and decides if it >>should give a penalty/bonus. I say that I think it can be done with the values >>alone. Why not? >> >>/David > >You cannot assign one set of values to the chess pieces and use that for >material evaluation. Material evaluation changes depending not only upon which >of the other pieces are on the board, but upon positional factors. Accurately >assessing material value can only be done by assessing those positional values >along with the other material on the board (which would be one complicated >algorithm), or by breaking material evaluation down into it's atomic parts, >which I believe is the correct way to do it. You have to evaluate chess upon the >elements of the game, which are determined by the rules of the game. Deep >insight into this area is the only way to allow for an efficient evaluation of >any element of a chess position. > >Russell For the 1000th time... I am not suggesting to drop any complex evaluation terms, and just have magical material values. I am suggesting to use other values than 1,3,3,5,9. If you don't believe that material values are important why do you use 1,3,3,5,9 (or whatever)? If you _do_ think it matters, why do you think 1,3,3,5,9 is magical? /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.