Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 10:45:42 02/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2004 at 13:31:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I disagree. your approach doesn't catch all cases either. The one I gave >previously is one example. with pawns at f7 g6 and h7, a rook on the g-file is >not a serious threat unless you push your own f and h pawns to try to attack >that g-pawn. But once it goes away we both notice it is good. So we both are >going to miss some things, and it is just a matter of picking which you like >best. I didn't choose to not do mobility for rooks because of the cost. I >didn't like some of the moves it produces. IE unnecessary pawn advances, or not >liking rooks side-by-side because they interfere with mobility, etc... It seems to me that the real problem was that your rook mobility evaluation was too primitive. If done right, evaluating rook mobility shouldn't usually cause unnecessary pawn advances. Such advances would give the rook a few more squares to move to, but these squares will typically not be very useful for the rook, and therefore shouldn't increase the rook mobility eval (at least not by much). The important thing is how many important squares the rook is able to reach or attack quickly without losing material, and not the total number of squares the rook attacks. All squares are not equal. Rooks side by side also shouldn't interfere with mobility. X-ray attacks should be considered as part of the mobility eval. Tord
This page took 0.01 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.