Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 00:59:55 01/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2002 at 19:21:07, martin fierz wrote: >On January 20, 2002 at 16:21:02, David Rasmussen wrote: > >> >>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 > >because all your examples above depend on a lot of other stuff maybe? that's the >point i tried to make in my post: a single rook with pawn vs knight and bishop >can have good chances in this pure endgame (+ a few more pawns each). in the >middlegame nearly never. how would you want to encode that in your material >values? I don't want to do that. I would want to add evaluation terms for that. Isn't that necesary with 1,3,3,5,9? Yes it is. What I am suggesting is not catching _all_ cases with material values, just to catch some more than one can with 1,3,3,5,9. And have fewer evaluation terms for special cases. I believe that is possible. At least I haven't seen any arguments against it. It seems that most people in this thread has misunderstood my question altogether. >a single rook with a pawn against two bishops is mostly in deep >trouble. >you have to check these specific cases in the end anyway, so what is the problem >with crafty's approach? just use normal values, and add the special cases. > There isn't necesarily a problem. But if I can have fewer special cases, by adjusting the material values which I will add anyway, I will. /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.