We should reconsider the value of the Queen.................

[diep]

Diep's 16 queenvalues (pawn=1.000), first value is opening :

{12.15 , 12.25 , 12.6 , 12.6 , 12.6 , 12.2 , 14.2 , 14.2 , 14.2 , 14.82 , 14.82 , 16.12 , 14.2 , 17.4 , 19.2 }

This is all adjusted by hand over the past years. It just gets put higher.

In 1999, Diep's queenvalue still was 10.75

So it just got more and more

We'll see what it gets when some automatic parameter tuning kicks in...

[hgm]

Interesting. Yet, I am pretty sure I would defeat KQ hands down with 18 Pawns.

[d]3qk3/8/8/8/1P4P1/PPPPPPPP/PPPPPPPP/4K3 w - 0 1

But probably Diep wouldn't count those Pawns for 1.00, being connected passers and such. (The are all doubled, though...)

How does Diep Evaluate the following?

[d]1nnnknn1/3ppp2/2n2n2/8/8/8/3PPP21Q1QK1Q1 w - 0 1

[pichy]

So here White just plays e4
What is the value of the two queens?

For an engine, as well as - within certain limits - for a human, piece values (and also positional values) are needed only to get an approximated value of a position where the search (resp. the human analysis) can't go deep enough to determine the "true value" of the position. In your example above it is a forced mate in three plies for white, so neither engines nor (strong enough) humans need to consider any piece values here.

Therefore, your example does not say anything about pieces values that should be used by programs.

Sven

You are forgetting something very important. You are not following
these conditions in your example of the two Queens. Please read it again

The relative value of pieces changes as a game progresses to the endgame. The relative value of pawns and rooks may increase, and the value of bishops may increase also, though usually to a lesser extent. The knight tends to lose some power, and the strength of the queen may be slightly lessened, as well. Some examples follow.
• A queen versus two rooks
• In the middlegame they are equal
• In the endgame, the two rooks are somewhat more powerful. With no other pieces on the board, two rooks are equal to a queen and a pawn
• A rook versus two minor pieces
• In the opening and middlegame, a rook and two pawns are weaker than two bishops; equal to or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight; and equal to two knights
• In the endgame, a rook and one pawn are equal to two knights; and equal or slightly weaker than a bishop and knight. A rook and two pawns are equal to two bishops
• Bishops are often more powerful than rooks in the opening. Rooks are usually more powerful than bishops in the middlegame, and rooks dominate the minor pieces in the endgame

[pichy]

Diep's 16 queenvalues (pawn=1.000), first value is opening :

{12.15 , 12.25 , 12.6 , 12.6 , 12.6 , 12.2 , 14.2 , 14.2 , 14.2 , 14.82 , 14.82 , 16.12 , 14.2 , 17.4 , 19.2 }

This is all adjusted by hand over the past years. It just gets put higher.

In 1999, Diep's queenvalue still was 10.75

So it just got more and more

We'll see what it gets when some automatic parameter tuning kicks in...

I believe that the problem of most engines is that the Queen value remain constant throughout the entire game.

In your case since you determined that your Queen should be equal to 10.75, it would be a good experiment to see how it does if you change it to a lesser value after it has reached the endgame stage.

Any Chess engine could easily be modified to adjust the value of the Queen depending on the stage of the game like Lasker recommended before the era of computer, for instance if the game has not reached the endgame which is normally after move 40 then this logic could be applied.

if(Condition)
Statement1;
else
Statement2;


if(Number of moves < than 40)
Statement1;value of Q=10.75
else
Statement2; value of Q=9.0

[rlsuth]

But if we add an extra pawn making it 9 points to both sides according to the old values of the pieces then Black win easy

[d]8/8/8/2bkp3/3r4/3KQ3/8/8 w - - 2 1

The value of this position is not 9 vs 9 though, since you have set it up that white immediately loses his queen for the rook. The value is +4 for black which seems to be an easy win to me. The position has nothing to do with the value of the queen.

[pichy]

But if we add an extra pawn making it 9 points to both sides according to the old values of the pieces then Black win easy

[d]8/8/8/2bkp3/3r4/3KQ3/8/8 w - - 2 1

The value of this position is not 9 vs 9 though, since you have set it up that white immediately loses his queen for the rook. The value is +4 for black which seems to be an easy win to me. The position has nothing to do with the value of the queen.

You probably prefer something like this
[d]8/8/1b6/1k6/3r4/1p1KQ3/8/8 w - - 0 1

[MM]

[d]

So here White just plays e4
What is the value of the two queens?

Beautiful position.

Queen is often overrated, especially by humans.

Best Regards

[Jimmy Huggins]

JUST BECAUSE YOU MAKE YOUR LETTERS THIS BIG DOESN'T MEAN I CARE ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENT ANYMORE THAN NORMAL .

[pichy]

[quote="Jimmy Huggins"UST BECAUSE YOU MAKE YOUR LETTERS THIS BIG DOESN'T MEAN I CARE ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENT ANYMORE THAN NORMAL.


Now that I found my glasses I don't have problem reading those letters anymore

[Sven]

So here White just plays e4
What is the value of the two queens?

For an engine, as well as - within certain limits - for a human, piece values (and also positional values) are needed only to get an approximated value of a position where the search (resp. the human analysis) can't go deep enough to determine the "true value" of the position. In your example above it is a forced mate in three plies for white, so neither engines nor (strong enough) humans need to consider any piece values here.

Therefore, your example does not say anything about pieces values that should be used by programs.

You are forgetting something very important. You are not following
these conditions in your example of the two Queens. Please read it again
[...]

I am not forgetting anything here, Jorge. I stated that your example is 100% unrelated to "piece values" since it is a mate in 3 plies. A similar statement applies to your other tactical examples where the queen value is fully unimportant (either the queen gets lost immediately, or the enemy can promote his passed pawn after white trades Q vs. RB). These examples are about search, not about the value of a queen when evaluating (leaf) positions.

We can surely debate about the choice of queen values in today's engines and possible improvements. Maybe you are right when stating that for some programs the queen value is too small. You can be sure, though, that this is not the case for the vast majority of the current "top" engines since their evaluation parameters are well-tuned. In any case, I don't say that your position is "wrong", the main issue I see with your posts (apart from the font size, of course) is the choice of your example positions which are unrelated to the points you want to make, in my opinion.

Sven