Author: Matthew White
Date: 11:42:36 07/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2003 at 14:25:13, Andrei Fortuna wrote: >On July 02, 2003 at 14:07:36, Matthew White wrote: > >>For example, I once heard a lecture stating that in the opening, a pawn is worth >>three tempi, meaning that if you can get a three developing move advantage on >>your opponent, then a gambit is generally okay. It would seem, then, that in an >>eval, a program could assign a value of 0 for a minus one pawn, plus three tempi >>situation (absent any other contributing factors). However, if you only have a >>two tempi and you give the opponent a pawn, does that mean you are -0.33? I >>don't think that the rule is so hard-and fast... A one tempo advantage is VERY >>different than a three tempo advantage. An exchange can often be used to regain >>one tempo, but regaining three tempi requires considerably more work. So is it >>fair to say that each tempo is worth the same amount? I don't think so. Just >>something to think about, I hope that all made sense. > >I don't think tempi have much use in an eval function. IMHO they look a bit >artificial and anyway if you are ahead 1-2-3 tempi then your program will have >to find a way to transform those tempi into another type of advantage in a >number of plies. > >Andrei How do you get a program to develop its pieces if you ignore time? Yes, piece-square tables are helpful, but how do you keep a program from chasing a piece that it thinks it can exchange, but which will result in letting the opponent develop his pieces comfortably and start an attack? I realize that we use opening books specifically to avoid having to think about these issues, but sometimes when opening books end early, I have seen engines un-develop a piece that the book just finished developing! Matt
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.