Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Outside passer and candidate passer: definition wanted! :-)

Author: h.g.muller

Date: 09:23:31 02/27/06

Go up one level in this thread


On February 27, 2006 at 07:02:19, Alessandro Scotti wrote:

>In Kiwi I used to have a "pawn race" evaluator that took into account passed
>pawns, the square rule and so on, but later had to remove it completely because
>of positions like this:
>
>[D] 8/p7/8/PP2k2p/8/8/8/K7 w - - 0 1
>

In my program from the mid-eighties, which had to go by without hash tables
because those day's memory sizes did not allow them, I evaluated such positions
dynamically (through search) in QS. The rule was that in a Pawns ending you were
not allowed to break off the search after a Pawn move. I considered this
situation logically equivalent to a recapture, and awarded the fact that the
opponent had a Pawn that could apparently move in the evaluation as if the Pawn
already was a Queen. (The "guilty-unless-proven-innocent principle".)
Furthermore, QS always considered Pawn moves of a Pawn that moved on ply n-2,
just as normally you continue to consider recaptures to the same square. Just
like recaptures eventually must run out, such Pawn moves do as well, because
either the pawn bumps into something that blocks it, is captured (QS always
considered capturing the piece that last moved), or promotes.

Of course in the face of the queening threat that was expressed in the static
evaluation, the opponent would have to be given some moves to prove the
innocence. So I allowed only King moves that reduced the distance between King
and the square in front of the Pawn. (I could have allowed only the one move
that reduced this distance most, to completely avoid branching is such a QS
'tree' unless captures/recaptures became possible. But in practice the number of
paths a King could take to 'fetch' the Pawn, if that was possible at all, never
exploded much.) Without anything in the way this counted out automatically the
quadrant rule.

In situations like the diagram above the line 1. b6, a7xb6 (recap) 2. a6xb6
(recap), Kxx (hunt) 3. b7 (race), Kxx (hunt) 4. b8Q as well as 1. b6, Kxx (hunt)
2. b6xa7 (race, cont. capt.), Kxx (hunt) 3. a8Q would be fully covered in QS.
Except perhaps the first move (depending on what went on previously), so that a
one-ply search would see the promotion.

This gave a much more stable search, because lines of play for which the current
eval was unclear, and that could end up either a Queen up or a Pawn down
(depending on subtleties as in the diagram), were first resolved in a deep but
narrow search before alternatives were considered. For such promotion races
iterative deepening proved pointless, that would be similar to controlling tree
size by first adding slider moves that do one step along each ray, and in the
second iteration add the two-step moves, etcetera. As long as you don't know if
there is an undefended Queen or a defended Pawn at the end of the ray, you have
no idea where the score is going, and it is useless to compare it to other moves
that are resolved.



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.