Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 11:23:41 10/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
(sniped) > >Some common eval 'terms' enhance mobility. Rooks on open files. Outposts. >Pieces not on the edge of the board. However, I have never been happy with >mobility as any sort of 'important' eval term. I use it for bishops as it >handles the 'good/bad' bishop case pretty nicely. But for other pieces, I don't >do mobility at all. For the queen it is _particularly_ bad. Bob, I think that in the core of what you have said about how, in a way, mobility is asociated with rooks in open files, pieces not in the edge of the board, etc emerges the real concept of what mobility is. INMHO, it cannot be just a matter of squares you can go, and if somebody add the concept of "safe" squares to refine mobility counting, then again a positional concept is hidden behind. I suppose that mobility has to do not with that quantitative, abstract idea where mobility in fact becomes "transportability" , but with the more o less easy pieces can ccoperate with each other to attack or to defend. Many endings you can see a bishop that has all the "trasnportability" of the world, but unfortunately enemy pieces are all in squares of he opposite colour and so that sad bishop I would say has half his mobility lost.A closed but armonical position has more mobility that one where you have pieces all around the board but not connected with each other or with too many movements to do to cooperate. So for me mobility would be "how many moves a piece needs to add his action to other pieces, attacking or defending. If this is truth, then automaically a soind positional program tends to create good mobility just because of that. Fernando
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.