Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 12:42:20 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 10:45:31, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >On May 04, 2004 at 16:46:14, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>Ernst A. Heinz suggests (w = Q/winning side, l = losing side) >> >>score = 400 + 1/8 * dist(K_l,R) - 1/8 * edge_dist(K_l) >> - 1/8 * corner_dist(K_l) - 1/8 * dist(K_l, K_w) >> > >We might have been reading different articles then but I read: I am confused, now. What was wrong with the formula I gave? >[KQ]l[KR]w = 8 + 1/8*dist([K]l,[Q]l) > - 1/4*edge_dist([K]l) > - 1/16*dist([K]l,[K]w) > >[KQ]w[KR]l = 4 + 1/8*dist([K]l,[R]l) > - 1/8*edge_dist([K]l) > - 1/8*dist([K]l,[K]w) > - 1/8*corner_dist([K]l) What is strange, is that the winning R gets a higher score, as the winning Q. Or Do I misinterprete the formalism used? Perhaps it is a typo in the paper. Actually exchanging 4 and 8 would make more sense. The only difference I see to the formula I gave, is that I used 400 instead of 4. I assumed, that it is meant like this in the paper (although not explicetly mentionend, at least I don't see it when I fast read over that part of the paper). But perhaps I am even more confused, than I think :-) Tord already mentioned, that 4 looks too low. But when the position is already on the board, it won't matter at all. It will be enough, when all scores are positive (when the pos is won), and that they will be lower than scores for KQK (otherwise the engine might refuse to take the R). The scores should fit together with other scores of course. Probably one might want to have lower scores for KQKR than for KBNK, etc. Regards, Dieter
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.