Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:28:38 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2002 at 17:48:09, Shane Hudson wrote: >On July 23, 2002 at 03:11:17, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 23, 2002 at 03:04:39, Pham Hong Nguyen wrote: >> >>>Hey Dann, I did not say about your test set - yes, all games of that test set >>>were artificially created to illustrate how important underpromotions are. >>>However, I am mentioning about _real_ games - other story. >> >>Almost all of those positions I posted are from *REAL GAMES*. Only a very tiny >>fraction are made up positions. >> >>>If you or someone could (or I will do when I have spare time), do a small >>>research about underpromotions in real games (of any database): count and report >>>total number of underpromotions / total number of promotions. The statistics >>>will help us on decision of design. >> >>The amount of useful underpromotions in real games will definitely be higher >>than you think. If it is as small as one in a million games where >>underpromotion provides benefit, I will be utterly astonished. > >I investigated this once for the purpose of improving material and >position search times in my database app Scid. > >Here are stats on the number of games containing a promotion to each >type of piece in a database of 594,803 mostly master-level games: > >Piece Games Freq per 1000 games >------------------------------------- >Any 24747 41.61 > Q 24083 40.50 > N 506 0.85 > R 227 0.38 > B 72 0.12 >------------------------------------- > >Whether many of those promotions to Rook or Bishop were actually >useful (superior to a Queen promotion) is anyone's guess. I suspect >most occurred in situations where the piece will immediately get >taken anyway. In a database of 1.7 million games with players of 2000 ELO+, I found 3056 underpromotions.
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.