Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:34:56 01/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2002 at 06:21:33, Daniel Clausen wrote: >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 My program does not use SEE today but when I generate my SEE I may use the values. Uri
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.