Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:08:33 08/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1998 at 19:04:51, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >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 I probably would too. But I don't think I'd ever give away two rooks and a pawn for a queen, as Stuart has in his current piece values. That's a lot. Too much, IMHO. Seriously too much.
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.