Author: José Carlos
Date: 16:01:52 09/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2002 at 19:46:49, Peter McKenzie wrote: >I've been having a break from computer chess post WCCC, but have now started >going over some of Warp's games. First up is Warp's worst game, the loss vs >Brutus. In this game, Warp showed a total lack of understanding of its >centralised king in the early middlegame and lost without a fight. > >I present here the position after move 21 in the game. White has grabbed a pawn >thinking this position is OK, but in reality the white king is hopelessly stuck >in the centre. Also, white is passive, black is active and has a safe king, >therefore white is totally winning here: > >[D]r1r3k1/1p3ppp/b5q1/p7/4n3/P3PNB1/1P3PPP/1Q1RK2R b K - 0 1 > >I am curious what the static evaluation of various programs is here. The >version of warp used in Maastricht gives 0.238 in favour of white. Ideally the >static evaluation should favour black here I think. > >cheers, >Peter I'm rewriting my eval from scratch, but my old Averno says 0.41 for white. King safety is of course better for black, but not enough in my too simplistic eval. A long time ago I had a look at Phalanx eval. I found something I liked and probably will use myself: when material is uneven it gives more importance to positional score. The more material difference, the more positional score is valued. Not that it will work here (only a pawn difference) but still would help. José C.
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.