Author: Ingo Lindam
Date: 05:09:17 07/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2003 at 05:00:16, Andrei Fortuna wrote: >That's mobility. To quote Mr. Hyatt's opinion on this subject "is mobility the >'cause' of a good position or is it simply the 'effect' of a good position? I >believe the latter is closer to the truth. Otherwise, moves like a4 would >be _good_ moves because they instantly improve both the real and potential >mobility of the a1 rook." Well, I guess a4 is a good move in a huge amount of positions, in particular when there is a rook on a1. In some of them there might be a even better move. Ofcourse whether a4 is a good move depends on a lot of features. I wonder if the above question is of great interest in computerchess. The tasks of making good moves (and thereby changing the features of the position) to get into a good position and that of recognizing good positions by a number of suitable features seems to be the same. >Easy to say. But what games to include to make this database ? Even GMs make >some blunders in their games and opening theory changes (a bit) in time. If you have a lot of games played on a high level there should be not to much examples of the same or similar (positional blunders) leading to more wins than losses. >Even if you make this good squares table based on openings : you are still >saying that in some openings some squares are just very good for some pieces, >and I disagree with this because it doesn't account for the placement of other >pieces. I think, too, that it might be dangerous to learn features like where to place best a single piece just depending on the opening. But I am sure it would be worth to know what pattern of placements of (some of) the pieces is successful against the pattern of placements of (some of) the opponents pieces. And it might to to often depend to much on the (exact) placement of the opponents pieces, in particular in closed positions, where sometime knowing an adequate plan and where to place the pieces is much more worth than to calculate some hours in the fog of 20 or more plies. (Although myself would tend to do so and loose on time) >For example what in an opening 'X' it is found that knight's position on f3 is >good, but this because in the analysed games the knight protects the pawns on d4 and e5, and in your game you place the knight on f3 but there are no pawns on d4 or e5 so it doesn't have the same role as in that opening. Maybe this is not a very good example but it does show what I mean above. You are very right at this point in my eyes. Whether there are pawns on d4 and e5 is obviously a very important feature in a position not only in question of where to place the knight. The evaluation of good squares, good moves and good plans by using the knowledge or experience of a lot of high level games should not lead to judge the place of the knight on basis of the very first moves on the games, but on the basis of the featers of the current position. In a position where pwans are places on d4 and e5 the machine should evaluate the position of the knight (and some other pieces) much more on the basis of positions and games with pawns on d4 and e5 than on positions occured after the same opening. Internette Gruesse, Ingo
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.