Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 03:21:33 01/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On January 21, 2002 at 04:07:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 21, 2002 at 03:52:29, David Rasmussen wrote: >>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 > >Nobody said that 1 3 3 5 9 are magical. > >The point is that the first thing that we need is a clear definition what are >the values. > >I use piece square table and the value of the piece is included in the piece >square tables. > >I have not one number for a knight but 64 numbers for knight based on the >square of the knight so it is not clear for me what do you mean by the value >of the knight in my program. But I'm sure that in the case of your 64 knight values you had a base value of.. uh.. let's say 300 in your mind and the 64 values are scattered in the [250, 350] interval or something. :) But I like the idea of putting this base value into the psq-table! Why didn't I think of that before! :) You probably even use these values there in SEE I think? Sargon
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.