Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:26:59 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.. Nope. Take any position with 8 pawns on both sides, and compare a bishop to a knight. Knight wins every time, because the bishop gets hemmed in. That's why I use bishop == knight (material) and then let the positional scores separate them. IE bishop has more mobility than knight, it is more valuable. Knight stuck in a strong outpost where it can't be dislodged is much stronger than a bishop. Etc...
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.