Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Pawn Majorities - an alternative (?)

Author: KarinsDad

Date: 09:33:46 09/17/99

Go up one level in this thread


Robert,

A very difficult problem to resolve.

Maybe the best solution is to not resolve it heavily at all (i.e. only resolve
it to the level you already have or maybe slightly moreso).

In my program, I am attempting to make positional moves over tactical moves.

So, I have multiple tactically sound PVs which I decide between. One of the
criteria that can be used to decide between them is to determine pawn structure
at the leaves of each "PV". If you had 30 different pawn structure "ideas" in a
database (or hardcoded), you could have a preset evaluation for each of these
structures (i.e. 3 white queenside pawns vs. 2 black queenside pawns where the
black pawns are doubled is one pawn structure "idea").

You could then use this "evaluation" to positively or negatively affect the
decision on which PV to choose (or at least I can do this in my code, you would
have to change Crafty drastically to implement this type of model).

Hence, if I have 5 PV scores all within 1/8th pawn of each other, I could pick
one which SHOULD result in a favorable pawn structure within the next 16 ply as
opposed to one which might not.

And, the other advantage of this model is that most of this pawn evaluation
"stuff" is handled just a few times for each "PV" just before deciding on a move
as opposed to within the evaluation code for every node that gets evaluated.
Hence, it could be relatively sophisticated (i.e. it could even take into
account things such as how advanced the pawns are) and still not take a lot of
time.

So, the basic idea is to avoid queenside majorities and other endgame weaknesses
if possible much earlier in the game. If I have two PVs of similar score, one
which should result in a queenside majority for my opponent and one which should
not, I pick the one which should not in order to avoid the potential weakness on
move 13 as opposed to attempting to evaluate it at move 45. Of course, this type
of solution will not work in all positions, but it should emulate better human
strategic play as opposed to purely tactical play (i.e. attempt to avoid the
pitfalls and cliffs before the position starts heading towards them). Part of
the "plan" is to give the program's side the best pawn structure it can way
before getting to the endgame.

Just an alternative idea.

KarinsDad :)



This page took 0.02 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.