Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:51:27 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: Yes, but that is just _one_ part. If you don't recognize a distant passer, then you won't try to reach the starting position. Once you recognize distant passers, you then have to correctly evaluate king position so that you will give up the distant passer at the right time, even if you don't _know_ that you will win by seeing it in the search. > >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 No, in that position it is about evaluating the distant passer. Later it is about evaluating king position.
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.