Author: blass uri
Date: 00:23:30 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 00:56:53, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On June 07, 1999 at 20:29:58, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 07, 1999 at 20:20:25, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>[snip] >>>At least for the present, it is only an opinion. >>> >>>Minimax has a way of removing the horrible error in end-point evaluations. It's >>>pretty rare that missing an underpromotion will actually hurt you. >>In the sample I examined, about 7% of the time it scores lower than always >>queening. I can send a list of such EPD's to anyone who would like a copy. > >Your sample includes only games in which promotion actually occurs, and the 7% >includes many positions where promoting to a rook might be slightly better, but >if the person playing had overlooked the possibility to underpromote, they could >have still won the game my promoting to a queen, either with the same move >sequence, or a different one. The important figure would represent how often >the rough evaluation of a position (e.g. clearly winning) depends upon a >promotion, and how many of these cases there are in which a queen will never >work. > >When you look for this, now you are counting practically every winning ending -- >and many winning middlegames -- with pawns on the board that gets resigned. I >do not have a statistic to back up my thoughts on this matter, but I am >extremely confident that the rate of "necessary underpromotions" will be far >less than 7%. 0.0007% would be more like it. > >Dave I am sure that it happens more than 0.0007% I did not do statistics about it but I think that Junior lose points because of not seeing underpromotions in more than 1 game out of 1000 but clearly less than 1 game out of 100. 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.