Author: martin fierz
Date: 02:26:57 01/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 14:03:08, Tord Romstad wrote: [snip] >Endgame evaluation is also tricky, because the evaluation should be very >different >depending on the type of endgame. I am tempted to write several different >evaluation >functions (one for pawn endgames, one for rook endgames, one for bishop vs >knight >endgames, one for endgames with unequal coloured bishops, and so on), but I am >afraid this would cause too big jumps when exchanges occur, make my static >exchange >evaluator too unreliable, and perhaps have other unfortunate side effects. Is >the idea >still worth a try? hi tord, i have different evals for different endgames. unfortunately, this is mostly on the todo list - i only have them for pawn endings, queen endings and rook endings. but i want to add eval functions for knight endings and bishop (equal and opposite-colored) endings. as a human, i very definitely have completely different evaluation functions based on what type of ending it is. i don't believe that you can make a "one size fits all" evaluation for endgames - i mean, of course you can make one evaluation, with constructs like "if(knightending) ....", but that is just a different way of writing it... cheers martin
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.