Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 10:49:11 01/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2003 at 13:22:21, Scott Gasch wrote: >But what are the counts? First three bits of the value you put in the table. >Do they take into account the fact that there are more >than one minor piece attacking the e5 square for each side? Kind of, since if there are ONLY minor pieces attacking it, you can use the count to find out how many, but other than that, I'm with you, it doesn't always work. >If not how can you >accurately do a SEE function for a position where there are different numbers of >minors attacking the square from each army? It would also be possible to make a >position where one side had two rooks attacking a square and the other only one. > If there were no minors and no pawns attacking that square, the side with more >rooks controls the square and that affects the value of proposed moves ending on >that square. > >Is this just rare enough of a situation that you accept some inaccuracy in the >interest of speed? I think so. I think that the point is that it works "most of the time" for his purposes (finding hanging pieces, etc.). I would guess that he does something else if he can't derive information from this method (?). Like, if he gets a situation where his attack table gives amiguous data, or maybe it does work all of the time and we just don't get get :) I'm with you, I find attack tables interesting, but I'm not sure I really understand how you would implement them and update them efficiently.
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.