Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 13:48:18 08/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 2004 at 16:23:03, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On August 03, 2004 at 10:07:52, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On August 03, 2004 at 06:24:12, Ricardo Gibert 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. >>> >>>At this site, there is listing of piece valuations by C. Posthoff: >>> >>>Pawn 1.00 >>>Knight 3.00 >>>Bishop 3.00 >>>King (100) >>>Rook 5.00 >>>Queen 9.00 >>> >>>Now it is possible for one side to have: >>> >>>9 Queens 9x9.00 = 81.00 >>>2 Rooks 2x5.00 = 10.00 >>>2 Bishops 2x3.00 = 6.00 >>>2 Knights 2x3.00 = 6.00 >>> Total = 103.00 >> >>>Which means all these units are worth more than a King! :) >>> >>>The practical importance of this is negligible, but in theory, the King ought >>>be worth more than 103.00 I would think. >> >>The value of a king has been calculated, because of its positional influence. >>That aspects are not yet introduced on my page. But of course such influences >>are inverse proportional to the average piece exchange values (even then, if a >>king cannot be exchanged). Simply imagine a chess variant with a newly added >>piece looking like and moving like a king, but which could not be threatened >>by check but be captured instead. The value specified is for a clone like that. >Sorry Reinhard, > >how much is a clone king worth in pawn units? as I have shown at [http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachansatz4.html], a 'clone' king is worth 3.75 pawn units, [http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1.html] where you can find him placed between rook and bishop in his average exchange value. And even hypothetical pieces can have their value estimated that way. >>We learn from that all, that the positional influences of pawns is far bigger >>than those from sliding pieces. The pawns are the soul of the game of chess > >I heard that sentence before. Was it Lasker or Steinitz? You are right. I think it has been Steinitz, but I am not sure. >But from what do we learn that positional influence of pawns are far bigger? >Because a positional value of _one_ pawn compared to it's material value is much >bigger than for _one_ sliding piece, even without considering advanced passers? > > maxPosValue(Pawn) maxPosValue(SomeSlidingPiece) > ----------------- >> ----------------------------- > materialVal(Pawn) materialVal(SomeSlidingPiece) I am not really willing to discuss that now in detail, because I am yet still writing on my smirf programm, supporting 10x8 boards with Capablanca piece sets and 8x8 traditional boards, and overmore enabling Fischer castlings at both. It would be one engine, handling both 8x8 and 10x8 FEN inputs. Today during perft tests I already gain about 20 million moves per second in average. [http://www.chessbox.de/Down/CRC_Test_03.txt] But nevertheless a simple example could demonstrate the meaning of my claim. When a pawn is capturing an opponent's piece, there normally will not be any risk, because when captured back, you will not have lost more than won. But when capturing a piece by a queen, the risk to lose some pawn units by being recap- tured then is much, much higher. The conclusion from that is, that when two different pieces influence a square, the one piece of LESS exchange value is the DOMINANT influencer at that square. Regards, Reinhard.
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.