Author: Koundinya Veluri
Date: 16:45:22 04/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2003 at 06:13:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 12, 2003 at 05:46:08, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On April 12, 2003 at 04:22:57, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 12, 2003 at 01:44:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>That has to be part of the evaluation. IE you have to know that you can >>>>give the pawn up if your king is closer to the remaining pawns than the >>>>opposing king is... >>>> >>>>I do that obviously... >>> >>>This has nothing to do with the pawn. >>> >>>You have to evaluate correctly the following position that can happen >>>if you do not search deep enough >>> >>>[D]8/8/1K6/5p1p/4kP1P/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 6 >>> >>>I hope that movei will be able to see it after I add some knolwedge but the >>>knowledge that is needed is not about passed pawns because there are no passed >>>pawns in that position. >> >>Bob never said anything about passed pawns. > >He did in the post that started this thread: > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?292975 > >"This seems to be an example of an engine that misses the power of the "distant >passed pawn". > >I agree that a lot of engines have problems in the evaluation but the problem >is about not evaluating correctly king relative to the pawns and has nothing to >do with evaluation of the "distant passed pawns". > >Uri It may take several moves for the white king to capture the passed pawn in some variations, so if the search can't see the capture from the initial position, then the "king relative to pawns" evaluation might not be sufficient to solve this. After the capture is made, the search can usually see the rest faily easily so I think the "distant passed pawns" evaluation is more important to solve these type of positions. Koundinya
This page took 0.01 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.