Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:45:55 01/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2002 at 02:41:23, martin fierz wrote: >On January 21, 2002 at 03:59:55, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>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. >> > >i dont misunderstand your question. but there are lots of things you must take >into account for the material evaluation, *regardless* of what your base values >are. at least if you want to write a decent program. so in some sense, your >question has no answer, because whatever your base values are, you should add >some special cases. however, the reason that 1,3,3,5,9 is "magical" as you term >it is that these are in fact very good values for the pieces. every beginner's >chess book has these values in. >i'm pretty sure that these values represent the values of the pieces as >accurately as possible under the constraints pawn=1, values only integers. and i >think these two conditions just come from the fact that when you write a chess >book for beginners, you want it to be simple. if you were to ask me, i would >rather go for 1,3,3.2,4.5,8.5 for PNBRQ, which i think is definitely better If you ask me I prefer 1,3.4,3.5,5,9.3 but the idea of chess books was not to explain things to computers and it is more simple to remember 1,3,3,5,9 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.