Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:01:39 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 01:13:58, Ed Trice wrote: >> >>To say that a rook is worth more than two knights because a rook can mate and >>two knights cannot isn't right, two knights are worth a lot more on the average. >> > >Indeed, the point was to show that the weights for the pieces should really >adjust as the game progresses. On his website his other values are static and >unchanging, even with the disclaimer that the equations may work for all three >phases of the game (opening, middlegame, and endgame.) Well the actual piece values are non-static and constantly changing, for instance a trapped piece is perhaps worth only a pawn and a knight which can't mate in the relevant endgame position is worth zero, etc. But what I'm interested in is their average (default) value, then I can always add or subtract bonus points for the current position. >In the opening and middlegame, the knight pair is more valued, but in the >endgame, clearly this is not the case. Close call in chess, perhaps in gothic chess the rook is more often better? -S.
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.