Author: José Carlos
Date: 04:10:48 08/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 22:35:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >Has anyone tried something like this for pawn value: >ranks advanced = 0, value = 1.000 = 100 centipawn >ranks advanced = 1, value = 1.000 >ranks advanced = 2, value = 1.013 >ranks advanced = 3, value = 1.065 >ranks advanced = 4, value = 1.299 >ranks advanced = 5, value = 2.547 >ranks advanced = 6, value = 10.347 > >This is derived from the following formula: >pawn_value = 1.0 + (ranks_advanced! - 1.0) * .013; > >I believe that the value of a pawn is a factorial of the number of squares it >has advanced... > >The reason that I think such a scheme is reasonable is as follows: >A pawn gains very little value on the first two moves, except some control of >the forward squares. However, a pawn two squares from queening is a problem, >and a pawn one square from queening is a *big* problem. You would gladly tie up >a knight to prevent queening, I think. Hence, it's value is nearly the value of >the knight. And, at the moment of queening, it is worth slightly *more* than a >queen. The reason it is worth more than a queen is that it can become a queen, >or another piece -- if that is advantageous. A queen cannot do that. So, the >moment it lands on the promotion square it has a value of something just over >10. > >Thoughts? In that case, the program would only promotion if: a) the other alternatives lose the pawn b) there's a forced mate In other circumstances, the promotion would make the evaluation worse. So, in an endgame, say, K+P in 7th vs K the program would only promote when reaching the 50 moves draw. José C.
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.