Author: fca
Date: 18:09:03 08/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1998 at 20:47:57, Don Dailey wrote: >On August 16, 1998 at 16:17:51, fca wrote: > >>On August 16, 1998 at 10:06:53, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>On August 15, 1998 at 22:18:24, Jeff Anderson wrote: >>> >>>>Can someone perhaps give me a rundown of the piece values used by different >>>>chess programs? How do small changes piece values in programs affect their >>>>play? >>>>Thanks, >>>>Jeff >> >>>Here are some values Larry Kaufman recommended that he felt would make >>>most decisions reasonably correct. It is based on 1/3 pawn units, >>>which he felt was the lowest unit that can return good values. He >>>also considered finer resolution like 1/4 units but thinks the 1/3 >>>unit is the best if you want the unit size to be relatively grainy: >> >>>pawn 3 >>>knight 3 >>>bishop 10 >>>rook 15 >>>queen 29 >>>Bish Pair 1 >>Try 9 for knight instead, Jeff, else expect some heavy losses for your program >>:-)) >Try 10 instead, that is what I meant. Of course that makes the following >discussion moot, sorry about the typo! Ha! With all the conspiracy talk abounding (was here for a millisecond, forever in the other place), I am sure this was a conspiracy to waste the time of these Moreland, Hyatt and fca guy (oops that is me). We need a moderator to look into this troll (oops that is you). ;-)) So, with N = 10 to start off with, I propose the need for R=15 to be increased has itself increased. Else, from a 2*B start, B+N vs R+P = 10 + 10 + 1 vs 15 + 3 i.e. to give up B & N for R & P is *materially* a whole pawn down, at any stage in the game. Clearly problematic! So in an even endgame (pawns semi-advanced, averagish) with: KRBBNPPP vs KRBBNPPP would you (first player) really give up the RPP for BN, leaving you with: KBBNP vs KRBPPP I think the effect might be a dramatic game-shortening, *on average* here. Throughout the game averaging, I think it would be unwise. Bob? Bruce? Vishy ( ;-) )? Anyone? Kind regards fca PS: As already realised by everyone, ccertain combi's work better. A vector (matrix if you prefer) is needed, not a scalar, to represent material count etc. etc.
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.