Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Piece Values

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 15:14:23 08/19/98

Go up one level in this thread


On August 19, 1998 at 08:43:30, Don Dailey wrote:

>
>>you might need some GM analysis.  IE a couple of years ago, Roman called
>>me one morning and said "Bob, I have played hundreds of games against
>>crafty over the past month or so, and I've found one major problem that
>>is hurting it...  you apparently have too large a bonus for keeping the
>>bishop pair."  I was surprised he even knew what this was all about, but
>>listened, and he went over some games and explained what was going on.  I
>>lowered the bonus... and he played some more and said "nope, still too high"
>>as it will allow itself to get into a really ugly position rather than
>>trade a bishop for knight.  I kept reducing it until finally "this is
>>right now...  it keeps the pair when possible, but won't accept gross
>>positional penalties to do so."
>>
>>The number he liked was .2, or 1/5th of a pawn...  and over the next month
>>or two I would bump it up and he would complain.  I've left it there ever
>>since...
>
>This makes sense to me.  How does your basic bishop compare to your
>basic knight?   As I stated before, I sometimes wonder if a high
>bishop pair bonus is ok, as long as you have compatible positional
>terms?  .2 might be right for your program, but maybe not for mine?
>It may be we have to consider what typically happens during an
>exchange of knight for bishop.  Quite often a doubled pawn is
>created, sometimes this is around the enemy king, other times
>a majority is gained etc.  The values these other terms have might
>be a factor.
>
>We have a pretty high bishop pair bonus and sometimes we do give
>up too much for it.  It's all a bit of a black art isn't it?
>
>
>
>


the numbers are pretty dynamic, but are roughly 3.3 each to start with,
although a bishop on an open board is more like 3.6...  Of course a
knight can reach that value too if it is stuck in a hole (at e5, for
example)...



>>>I also do not believe 2 bishops = 2 knights + 1 pawn but a couple
>>>of strong players (much stronger than me) have told me this was
>>>not unreasonable.
>>>
>>>- Don
>>
>>I don't believe this either.  In some cases, yes... but with all pawns
>>on the same side, the two knights can actually be better, since they can
>>gang up on a single weak pawn while two bishops can't...



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.