Author: KarinsDad
Date: 11:40:31 08/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 1999 at 14:09:18, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On August 04, 1999 at 12:16:52, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>As a 'for instance': >> >>Suppose that on promotion, a program sees that it can promote to a knight >>instead of a queen, and get a king fork, taking a bishop, followed by a queen >>fork, taking the other bishop. In such a case, it might evaluate: >> -pawn+knight+bishop+bishop+two_bishop_bonus+(minor positional goo) >>verses >> -pawn+queen >>and get something a fraction more valuable than a queen. But down the road I >>would rather have the queen than a knight and remove the two bishops. >> >>How do programs deal with this? > >You are really saying you'd rather have a queen against two bishops than be a >knight up, right? > >bruce Actually, assuming an equal game, it is a preference of being up a queen for a pawn as opposed to being up a knight and two bishops for a pawn. Of course, decisions like these are always based off of the actual position, but here is a comment Kasparov made just the other day on Ponomariov - Al Modiakhi in round 1 of the championship: "Looking at Ponomariov's 7.Be3 with 8.Bb6 I have sensed chess of the very distant future. With my limited knowledge of the game I would consider 3 minor pieces in such position much better than Queen+pawn". So, there are obviously positions where having 3 minors is better than having the queen. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0.01 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.