Author: Tom King
Date: 12:53:55 08/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 1999 at 17:27:52, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On August 11, 1999 at 16:12:07, Tom King wrote: > >>I must be missing something obvious with using SEE to prune >>in the Q. search. If I understand right, "losing" captures >>(according to the SEE) are pruned right out. But I fail to >>see how this won't screw up big time. >> >>Let's take an example. Now assume we have a white bishop on G5 >>and a black knight on F6, and the knight is protected by a pawn on G7. >>Now the SEE might well assume that BxN is a loser (assuming that >>the bishop is worth a fraction more than the knight), because >>after BxN, gxB, white has lost a bishop for a knight. But it >>might be that this is in fact a very good capture, because it >>destroys black's kingside. And a program with the SEE Q. pruning >>might not want to play this? Am I missing something obvious >>here? > >Yes, a bishop is worth the same as a knight. > >bruce not in my program, it ain't ;-) anyhow is val[bishop]==val[knight]? I always thought that bishops were worth *slightly* more than a knight in general..
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.