Author: scott farrell
Date: 07:58:04 11/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2003 at 10:17:19, Tord Romstad wrote: yeh, I scale back if there is a knight or bishop around, as you can sac the knight/bishop onto the passed pawn pair, and ussually consume both passed pawns. So it equals a KNIGHT instead of a ROOK in terms of eval. never thought of scaling back for a queen - I leave this to the search. Scott >On November 04, 2003 at 09:53:16, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>I don't have much experience when it comes to evaluate such positions with my >>engine, but are you sure it's a good idea to evaluate two connected pawns on the >>7th row at least one rook? Are there more positions where this is right than >>wrong? > >If you do it more carefully, I don't think the risk is very big. My impression >is that I win more games than I lose because of high passed pawn scores. > >>I can imagine that chances that this is good are rather high when there are no >>queens around anymore. But with queens still on the board I can imagine lots of >>checks which capture one pawn and give check at the same time, which quickly >>nullifies the advantage again. > >Yes, you definitely should consider the material left on the board when >evaluating advanced passed pawns. I scale the passed pawn evaluation >depending on the amount of material left, and subtract a further amount >if the opponent has a queen. > >Tord
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.