Author: margolies,marc
Date: 22:26:37 07/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
about "Didactic"....it is a word about instruction. When Nimzovitch wrote "My System," He made his living a Chess Teacher in Denmark, far from his native Riga,Latvia. Therefore I mean telling a pupil to get his pieces out early is not meant as a hard and fast rule for very experienced players in all positions but rather as a learning principle, disederatum if you will. My original post does expand on my view of this so it doesn't bear repeating. How to define good squares programmaticaly. ?? A classic teaching method involves calculating how many possible moves that a minor piece can make from a given square as an idication of the relative power of that piece... to convince a young player not to put Bishops or Knights on a1,a8,h1,h8 through an enumeration process. Of course this is an extreme example, yet we can use it as a paradigm of piece activity for good squares. Another 'good square' issue which can be calculated is how many squares are controlled by a piece on a certain square. Perhaps a stochastic process can also be used... certain squares are known to work well for certain pieces in specific openings based on the common plans and themes of that opening. While an eval function does not need to know plans, squares can be weighted within opening selections after aggregate analysis of the sort available using chessbase8 operating on a large high quality database. About 'Pawn Screens'... you are welcome to disagree with their worth because it requires technique to use them, we have to allow for the possibilty of failure in any chess adventure, gambits, pawn screens, whatever.....but I do not see that as a counter argument to their value just because they don't work for you. Regarding "no eval necessary".... if an examination of a few more plies prove the answer then the advantage of programming a special idea might be marginal. On July 04, 2003 at 05:31:27, Andrei Fortuna wrote: >On July 04, 2003 at 03:53:14, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>Didactic(teacher's) comments about pawn moves will not solve the problemof >>evaluation of tempi. When the great masters of chess taught this -to bring out >>peices only-, they taught novices. a strong player must be aware of when to >>break such a rule and not yield to it. Moreover, opening theory has been >>transformed from the time of this advice. > >I agree with the last part. >I agree also that there is the notion of "tempi" but it is hard to include it in >a chess program and I believe that if you have more tempi your search should >find some way to turn them into some other kind of advantage in a few plies of >search. Otherwise what good would it be if you are ahead in developement if you >cannot use it to get some advantages from the position ? > >Why did you say "didactical comments" above ? I don't quite understand it. > >>And while piece play is clear >>development, often pieces work well behind a 'pawn screen.' > >Yes but sometimes after you push pawns too much your whole position might >crumble to dust due especially to those advances. > >>[...] >>And I do not think development is always enough; pieces should be on good >>squares. > >How do you define good squares for piece placement ? Programatically I mean. > >>Of course this can be examined as a tactical calculation- no EVAL >>necessary. > >I don't understand this sentence. > >Andrei
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.