Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Static evaluation after the "Positional/Real Sacrifice"

Author: Andrew Williams

Date: 08:13:11 12/03/99

Go up one level in this thread

On December 03, 1999 at 10:09:31, Jon Dart wrote:

>This is Arasan 5.3's score:
>material score = 114
>white pawn score = -4
>black pawn score = -3
>outside pawn score = 3
>king safety(w) proximity = 0 cover = -31 mlevel = 10
>battery (b): score = -20 mate= 0 stack = 0
>battery (b): score = -24 mate= 0 stack = 1
>king safety(b) proximity = -65 cover = -72 mlevel = 10
>net king safety score = 101
>total score =  0.42

I'd say that Black's King is significantly less "covered" than White's.

>(The scores are based on 1 pawn = 64 units. "proximity" is
>a measure of closeness of enemy pieces, "cover" of the
>king's pawn cover, "mlevel" of the opponent's material
>level. "battery" measures danger from rooks/queens
>on an open file near the king).
>Arasan generally doesn't give monster scores for king safety/
>danger. 101 (about +1.5 pawns) is a pretty high score here.
>King safety is very tricky. Here is a position my program had
>recently against zippy (GnuChess):
>r1bq1r1k/ppp3pB/2nb2Qp/3pp2N/3P4/2P2N2/PP3PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 1

Wow! That really is a good position for this sort of thing.
I'm not too unhappy with PM's overall evaluation of +0.35
for White. My "ATTACKTOTAL" score for this position is 0.59,
which seems a bit on the high side, because, as you say, the
attack isn't going anywhere. Thanks for the position.

>Arasan thinks White has a fine attack going, but in fact there
>is really nothing he can do (Crafty doesn't like this position
>for White because the bishop's position triggers its "trapped
>bishop" penalty - and it is in danger, but that's another issue).


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.