Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:04:51 08/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1998 at 16:17:51, fca wrote: >An interesting effect of the above is assuming both sides had a bishop pair to >start off with, the "close exchange" of B + N v R + P would cost > >10 + 9 + 1 (loss of B-pair) v 15 + 3 > >i.e. 20 v 18 > >i.e. 2/3 of a pawn down for the loser of B+N. I think this is wrong, and should >be 1/3 pawn. Around a whole pawn, in my experience. It is a classic mistake for a computer to get R+P+minor positional comp for B+N. The cases I've seen, B+N often outplays R+P+P, if it happens early enough and the pawns aren't super-nice. When my program loses B+N for R+anything, I expect it to lose. > If we up R to 16 it also produces a more reasonable result v Q, as > (ignoring 2 rooks in case there is a 2-R bonus) > >R + B + P v Q > >with my amendment gives > >16 + 10 + 3 v 29 > >i.e. 29 v 29 > >i.e. fits in with my OTB observation that R+B+P v Q often holds... Early enough on, I think I will take the queen, every time. bruce
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.