Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: likelihood instead of pawnunits? + chess knowledge

Author: Josť Carlos

Date: 04:40:16 10/26/02

Go up one level in this thread

On October 25, 2002 at 19:50:05, Ingo Lindam wrote:

>On October 25, 2002 at 13:14:28, Josť Carlos wrote:
>>  Sounds interesting, but a real example (even if it is simple) would help. The
>>idea alone is not useful, and has been suggested in the past.
>>  Josť C.
>Hello Jose,
>two very very very simple patterns might be
>(P+,P=,P-)(Pe4,Pg4,Nf5,pe5,pg5) = (0.5,0.3,0.2)
>(P+,P=,P-)(Pf3,Pg4,Nh2,pg5)     = (0.2,0.29,0.51)
>these are just two as I said very very simple pattern you might derive or
>"check" by your chessbase.
>Best regards,

  Thanks for the example. Now I understand.
  I have thought about patters sometimes. The problem I've always found is: a
pattern (in this context we're talking about) is a subset of the board. In an
endgame position with few pieces you could probably use that scheme, but what do
you do in a midgame position full of pieces?
  If you use locality to determine the patterns (in your examples, all pieces
are within the same area) you miss the action of sliding pieces from the
distance. It could be possible to find the distant influencing pieces, and
include them into the pattern... right?

  Josť C.

This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.