Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 20:20:29 09/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2004 at 22:46:41, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On September 21, 2004 at 22:31:08, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>
>>On September 21, 2004 at 21:53:47, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On September 21, 2004 at 19:41:42, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>// white knight
>>>> {
>>>> OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF,
>>>> OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF,
>>>> OFF, 64, 41, 60, 67, 67, 60, 41, 64, OFF,
>>>> OFF, 48, 79, 91, 76, 76, 91, 79, 48, OFF,
>>>> OFF, 57, 86, 95, 111, 111, 95, 86, 57, OFF,
>>>> OFF, 77, 105, 123, 129, 129, 123, 105, 77, OFF,
>>>> OFF, 99, 124, 129, 145, 145, 129, 124, 99, OFF,
>>>> OFF , 79, 114, 116, 144, 144, 116, 114, 79, OFF,
>>>> OFF, 53, 77, 108, 81, 81, 108, 77, 53, OFF,
>>>> OFF, 0, 71, 73, 73, 73, 73, 71, 0, OFF,
>>>> OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF,
>>>> OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF, OFF
>>>> },
>>>
>>>A value of 64 for A8 and H8 seems highly suspect to me. Similarly for A1 and H1
>>>for the black knight.
>>
>>Originals in article are 1/100th.
>
>Centipawns or millipawns -- whatever.
>
>It's still a knight in a corner. A very bad place to put a knight.
Just reporting on the Beal/Smith article.
I have negative values as "knight on the rim" as we all know...
"is dim".
Stuart :-)
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.