Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:43:18 08/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 1999 at 15:53:55, Tom King wrote: >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.. You can make the bishop more valuable than the knight by giving it a positional bonus, for instance if you use a piece-square table, and your bishop is currently worth 10 centipawns more than a knight, you can just make the knight worth the same as the bishop, and add 10 centipawns to everything in the bishop section of the piece-square table. bruce
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.