Author: Tim Foden
Date: 00:22:27 04/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2003 at 00:56:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 12, 2003 at 22:01:10, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>Yes but if the pawn is not captured the program in the search the program has no >>reason to let the rook trade. >> >>simple evaluation that give bonus to every passed pawn is enough. > >You have _got_ to be a better chess player than that. You are saying all >passed pawns are equal. They most definitely are not. Pawns on the a,b c >file for both sides. My passer is on the h file. Yours is on the e file. >You _still_ think that a bonus for a passer is enough? I have a passer already, >you can trade rooks to create your passed e pawn. Smart move? I don't think >so... I realise it's not clear from his answer at this point in the message, but I beleive Uri is talking _specifically_ about the single position posted. He believes that distant passed pawn info is not required to solve _this_ position. If you had read to the bottom of Uri's reply before replying, I believe that you would have understood this :) See below... >>I agree that evaluation of distant passed pawn is necessary but the position was >>not a good example because program with only small bonus for passed pawns and >>knowledge to evaluate pawns relative to the king can also solve it. >> >>It is possible to have a case when evaluation of distant passed pawn is >>important but I think that a case when both sides have passed pawns or a case >>that you need to sacrifice a pawn in order to create the distant passed pawn can >>be better. >> >>Uri Cheers, Tim.
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.