Author: Nicolas Carrasco
Date: 17:08:10 10/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
Of course you are right, and there are more and more postition where you have to
change eval functions, I tried to give a simple example!.
Thanks and I agree YOU :)
On October 05, 1999 at 07:34:46, Shep wrote:
>On October 04, 1999 at 21:40:34, Nicolas Carrasco wrote:
>
>>I haven´t written a eval function yet, but I have read TSCP and Faile evals
>>functions.
>>
>>Faile to determine endgame set a varible like: "endgame = TRUE"
>>
>>and at the eval function like this:
>>
>>int eval(void)
>>{
>>
>>counter = count_pieces();
>>
>>if (counter < 5) {
>> endgame = TRUE;
>>
>>if (endgame)
>> return endgame_eval();
>>
>>return midgame_eval();
>>}
>>
>>That is an idea I invented at the moment.
>
>I don't know how your count_pieces() function looks like, but isn't it a little
>extreme to say "endgame iff less than 5 pieces"? (Or do you mean "5 pieces on
>each side"?)
>3P vs. 3P is definitely an "endgame". Even if you add 1 or 2 RNB on either side,
>it's still an endgame to me. I.e. a situation where e.g. the king itself should
>come into play and thus the king safety algorithm must be different (as for
>example moving away from the back row or advancing the pawns before the king is
>no longer a bad idea).
>
>---
>Shep
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.