Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:37:07 03/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2003 at 07:05:03, Ferdinand S. Mosca wrote: >On March 21, 2003 at 02:06:05, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 21, 2003 at 01:59:54, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I am too lazy to read the source code of the best free programs with source >>>code(I may do it with Crafty but I do not think that I will do it for pepito(I >>>read that it is written in spanish) and resp and other strong programs with >>>source code. >>> >>>My question is how do they evaluate pawns(it means not only pawn structure but >>>also subjects like pawn relative to the king and the fact that the king should >>>not go always to the middle of the board in the endgame). >>> >>>I want to know before I decide exactly how to evaluate it in movei(It will >>>probably not be the same as one of the programs but productive ideas may be >>>taken from them). >>> >>>Can somebody explain the evaluation in words? >>>Thanks in advance >>> >>>Uri >> >>I see that I forgot amy that is better than resp(there are probably other strong >>programs with source code that I do not know). >> >>I want to know how many of them know for example that if in endgame all the >>pawns are in a-b files then the a-b files are better than the g-h files for the >>king(movei is at similiar level to resp but it does not know it). > >Why do the pawns in a and b files are more better if opponent castles queen >side? Maybe I did not get your statement above. I am talking about endgames Here is a diagram The only advantage of black is that the black king is in the a file and not in the h file(you can see that the a and b files are better for the king than the g and h files because all the pawns are in a-b files. A good program should see that black is better by static evaluation. [D]7K/8/pp6/8/8/PP6/8/k7 w - - 0 1 > >> >>I also think that it may be a good idea if someone writes a book that describe >>the evaluation of the top free programs in a way that it is easy for humans to >>understand it. > >As I have observed here, most programmers or maybe all of them shared their >ideas not for other people but for natural programmers (basically). The great Ed >has come close, but still his intended audience are already those who knew >programming (naturally). You do not understand. I am a programmer but it is more easy for programmers to understand explanation like Ed's explanation and not source code of other programs. Unfortunately Ed did not arrive to the part of pawn structure and passed pawns in his programmer stuff. I think that the way that Ed give the information is a way that is easy for humans to understand. > >I also believe that learning the hard way is more sweeter. Read, create, test, >evaluate, back to reading, more reading. > >Regards, >Dinan I do not agree. Maybe it is fun for you to try to understand meaning of a code of another program and to translate comments in spanish to a language that you understand but it is more fun for me to understand the ideas directly in english. I can do things myself but I prefer to know first what other did. I do not plan to copy source code of other because my data structure is different. I also do not plan to copy the exact pawn structure evaluation of other because I believe that I have good ideas that are not used by other people but I do not want to miss the good ideas that are used by other people. Uri
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.