Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:29:39 01/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2004 at 09:23:01, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >Applying (quickly) the SMIRF method of calculating the exchange values of chess >pieces, I found some estimations, which differ from those published by Ed Trice, >especially for traditional pieces. > >Piece SMIRF Vortex >--------------------------- >Pawn 1.00 1.00 >Knight 3.06 2.50 (!) >Bishop 3.60 3.00 (!) >King 3.72 ---- >Rook 5.43 4.75 (!) >Archbishop 6.65 6.50 >Chancellor 8.49 8.25 >Queen 9.03 8.75 > >See also at [http://www.rescon.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html] and before. > >It for shure would be interesting, when Vortex would be compiled a second time >using SMIRF values and compete with the original version. So it might be >possible to check out, which piece values would be more usable estimated. > >Obviously Ed will believe in his figures, I in mine. > >Are there third values calculated by other models? This would be very >interesting! > >Regards, Reinhard. After reading the thread started by this bulletin I get the impression that the methods discussed have the primary benefit of requiring little computation and hence a very small percentage of the microprocessor's time. [also, not very much time required to produce the code] There are many positions cited and discussed in the printed chess literature which show radically different piece valuations applicable to only to the specific position being discussed. As a trivial example, if it is mate in one and the final checking move is to be made by a pawn, then the value of that pawn is infinite. It is not clear to me that the simplified model being used is optimal in terms of amount of benefit versus cost. Perhaps a more complex but more accurate model would produce higher engine performance. I don't know, of course. Bob D.
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.