TalkChess.com
Hosted by Your Move Chess & Games

Author Message
H.G.Muller

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 12775
Location: Amsterdam

 Post subject: Mobility eval    Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 11:44 am What is the current consensus on mobility evaluation? I have seen that some programs just count legal moves (weighted by piece type), others count only moves to squares not controlled by enemy Pawns, while still others only count forward moves of some pieces. Is there a way that is considered 'best'? From my piece-value measurements I know that forward moves on a piece are typically worth twice as much as backwards or sideway moves, so weighting them differently could make sense. (Only counting forward moves seems a bit extreme, though.) An alternative, which on average would achieve the same, would be to weigth by target square. If squares on central ranks are weighted more, this favors forward mobility, as pieces usually can only be safely kept on your own half of the board. (White and black weighting of the same square can of course be made different.) I also wondered if there is a rationale for excluding only squares controlled by Pawns, as opposed to excluding squares controlled by any enemy piece of lower value. I guess mobility can also be looked upon as 'board control', and attacking a square with a Rook, even if it is protected by a Knight, still increases your control over that square (it prevents the opponent from entering it with a Queen, and it would allow you to enter it with a minor). Squares controlled by enemy Pawns can never be entered by your pieces, however, no matter how often you attack them. But attacking such squares could still prevent the opponent from entering them with a higher piece. So they might deserve to carry some (small) weigth. I was planning to implement this by taking counts of each piece type that could reach a square (as a sort of material index of the material that reaches it), so that I can use a lookup table to translate that material to score, so that I can basically use any weighting scheme without requiring any additional computational effort.
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
Subject Author Date/Time
H.G.Muller Tue May 01, 2012 11:44 am
Lucas Braesch Tue May 01, 2012 2:22 pm
Don Dailey Tue May 01, 2012 3:59 pm
Don Dailey Tue May 01, 2012 4:03 pm
Michel Van den Bergh Tue May 01, 2012 4:32 pm
H.G.Muller Tue May 01, 2012 8:18 pm
H.G.Muller Tue May 01, 2012 8:35 pm
Chris Whittington Wed May 02, 2012 8:48 pm
Don Dailey Wed May 02, 2012 9:14 pm
Chris Whittington Thu May 03, 2012 8:27 am
Ferdinand Mosca Thu May 03, 2012 10:27 am
Pawel Koziol Fri May 04, 2012 12:11 pm
Mincho Georgiev Tue May 01, 2012 4:36 pm
Don Dailey Tue May 01, 2012 4:45 pm
Vincent Diepeveen Tue May 01, 2012 5:31 pm
Don Dailey Tue May 01, 2012 5:33 pm
Vincent Diepeveen Thu May 03, 2012 9:16 am
Dan Honeycutt Fri May 04, 2012 6:58 pm
Ferdinand Mosca Thu May 03, 2012 9:40 am

 Jump to: Select a forum Computer Chess Club Forums----------------Computer Chess Club: General TopicsComputer Chess Club: Tournaments and MatchesComputer Chess Club: Programming and Technical DiscussionsComputer Chess Club: Engine Origins Other Forums----------------Chess Thinkers ForumForum Help and Suggestions
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum