Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:33:21 02/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2004 at 11:42:43, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 25, 2004 at 11:36:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 25, 2004 at 11:14:49, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>> >>>I think it is depended on the position and there are good chances that they are >>>better with some pieces on the board. >> >>In the following, you don't have "some" pieces on the board. You have exactly >>one for each side. > > >one for each side is 2 pieces. > >If "some" means more than 2 you are right but I thought that at least 2 is a >private case of "some". > > >Uri When I am evaluating my pawns, I don't care how many pieces I have, I am worried about how many you have. Because your pieces have to stop my pawns, not mine. IE I can have two queens and you have none, and my passed pawn race code works just fine when evaluating my pawns since you have no pieces to stop them, and it understands that your passed pawns are irrelevant since my pieces can stop them. Once you get to two bishops per side, the split passers don't represent that big a danger any longer, which is just what I said I am doing in my eval...
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.