Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:39:28 10/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1999 at 09:28:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 22, 1999 at 00:18:37, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On October 21, 1999 at 22:14:01, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On October 21, 1999 at 17:25:32, KarinsDad wrote: >>> >>>>The problem is not one of how many squares can a piece move to, but rather how >>>>many squares can a piece move to safely. Additionally, if you analyze GM games, >>>>you will notice that a square that does not really look safe, is safe due to >>>>some condition of the board. However, I just let the search engine take care of >>>>that one. >>> >>>The problem is even bigger than this, of course. It doesn't really matter how >>>many squares a piece can safely move to, what matters is whether it can continue >>>to do something useful, or move to somewhere where it can do something useful. >>> >>>Dave >> >>Depending on the position, this is true. >> >>I look at a chess program as something with which you attempt to make moves >>while weakening your position the least and hindering your opponent's position >>the most. Mobility, especially in the opening and middlegame probably does that >>right behind material and possibly piece overprotection. There are probably more >>factors than we can even count and the weight of any given factor depends >>heavily on the position. But, with bitboards, I think that safe square mobility >>is something that can quickly be calculated, similar to material being quick to >>calculate. >> >>I consider it a positional tactic (due to the possibilities for future good >>moves it presents) as opposed to a material gain tactic and I consider the cost >>to calculate it small. >> >>KarinsDad :) > > >Here is a point to ponder: > >Does having lots of mobility make the position "good"? Or does a good position >have lots of mobility? IE is mobility the 'cause' of a good position or is it >simply the 'effect' of a good position? > >I believe the latter is closer to the truth. Otherwise, moves like a4 would >be _good_ moves because they instantly improve both the real and potential >mobility of the a1 rook. If I had to guess, I would say that mobility is one out of several possible causal factors in a good position. However, it usually requires other factors such as material equality (or material advantage), square control, king threats, etc. In and of itself, a mobility advantage does not guarantee a good position. Just like in and of itself, a material advantage does not guarantee a good position. Each factor that leads to a good position is a subset of all of the factors and it is unlikely that any one factor takes precedence over all others. However, any given factor does not have to be present in order to have a good position (for example, you could be down a queen and about to checkmate or you might have only one move on the board and about to checkmate). However, a chess program searches the graph and keeps moves which lead to certain criteria and discards moves which do not. The fast searchers have a criteria of material gain (for the most part). If you could add a LOT of evaluation factors such as square control and mobility at an inexpensive cost similar to material gain, I think you will lead the game away from hidden pitfalls (beyond the event horizon) for you and towards hidden pitfalls for your opponent (on average, I doubt any algorithm could do this for all relatively equal positions) while at the same time, searching relatively deep. KarinsDad :)
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.