Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:20:02 08/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2004 at 07:10:59, morphy wrote: >On August 03, 2004 at 06:42:02, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 03, 2004 at 06:08:16, morphy wrote: >> >>>On August 03, 2004 at 05:48:15, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >>> >>>>On August 03, 2004 at 04:54:11, morphy wrote: >>>> >>>>>Why the valutation is always referred to the material advantage (where a pawn in >>>>>more is the unit) and we can't have a valutation in tems of percentage of >>>>>probability for winning and drawing? >>>> >>>>Maybe you find some answers at R. Scharnagl's SMIRF sites: >>>> >>>>http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachwert1_e.html >>>>and following. >>> >>>Thank you very much, I'm analyzing the site... >>>I don't understand the Reply by Uri Blass, I'm not an expert programmer but i >>>want begin to understand some principles and I asked some doubt to you. >> >>The point is that it is more easy to have evaluation in pawns then in >>probabilities. >> >>It is hard to evaluate probabilities based on the position(espacially in the >>middle game). >> >>material is more easy and later if you want to consider probability you can give >>bonus for simplification of the position and to evaluate material advantage as >>worth more when there is less pieces. >> >>I agree that probabilities in theory are better but practically it is harder to >>write code that only deals with probabilities. >> >>Uri > >I believe that for approach a valutation in terms of probabilities intestead of >bonus and/or material advantage, simlpy by ratio of White's advantages with >Black's, instead than difference of them. Why not any ratio? It is not so simple pawn advantage is often a draw when there are almost no pawns in the board Here is an example: [D]2kr4/8/8/8/8/8/7P/2KR4 w - - 0 1 More pawns may help the side with pawn advantage so I think that dividing is not a good idea. Uri
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.