Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 11:36:11 10/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
Hi
On October 22, 1999 at 09:28:21, Robert Hyatt wrote:
[snip]
>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.
The eval of my (poor :) engine uses mobility but the weight is rather
small. And for pieces like queen/rook/knight mobility more hurts or just
doesn't help. I bet every chess programmer knows this situation:
Initial position:
1nd move e4 : Hey! My program can play decent moves with White!
2nd move e5 : Wow! Even with black!!!
3rd move Qh5: Umm.. :)
I think that mobility is useful to choose between two otherwise 'equal'
moves. The reasoning:
1. Usually mobility doesn't hurt.
2. The more moves I have, the bigger the chance that one of them is
winning. (Although one single move is enough, if it is winning!)
The 2nd argument is not so strong in chess though IMO. But in the game
Othello/Reversi mobility is almost everything. This is why minimal-disc
strategy in this game is so successful. (If the number of your discs is
low, the opponent almost always has a small number of moves.) Of course
somewhere between 35-50th move you should switch to maximum-disc. :))
Kind regards,
-sargon
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.