Author: Ed Trice
Date: 22:22:05 01/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Reinhardm >first: you still have not answered on >[http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?339794]. > Yes somehow I missed this post. I replied to it now. > >Why do your piece values of Archbishop and Chancellor increase then? This was done as a "post-process" on the 10x8 values, not from the 8x8 values. That is, on an 8x8 board all values are stronger. My work was derived from Taylor's, which did not claim to provide exact values, so neither could I. On the page I explain this as well. > >We are talking about average exchange values. But in evaluating a concrete >position you have to overlay positional evaluating. And because of its depending >on inverse piece values a combined figure has weaker threats that each of its >components would own. The difference therefore can be found in the detail >evaluation. > I see then! My values are not based on just one equation, I made my own adjustment (a "positional" merit thrown in at the end) which is part of the score. This explains our differences. I try to come up with exact weights and feed it to the program, rather than compute positional weights as other factors change. > >Take the one from my page: [http://www.rescon.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html]. > >>Let me know how many games you want in the match, how many of each time control >>(like maybe 10 games at 10 seconds/move, 10 games at 20 seconds/move, 10 games >>at 30 seconds/move, etc.) > >Until it will become significant or about e.g. 100 games or you are convinced >having invested too much time. > OK, I will start on this tomorrow and let you know. What is your email address? I tried the one you list here but it does not seem to work.
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.