Heavy piece shelter

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

This will be my last topic for today, it is just the heat that spurs you on. Hopefully, the mods will not impose a daily limit on messages soon.

Anyhow, everyone knows that minor pieces on squares of the shelter are due some bonus for protecting the king. If a pawn in the shelter gets some 50cps bonus on average for protecting the king, a minor piece will get some 15cps, so roughly 1/3.

As king safety is very important, heavy pieces are also an alternative shelter on a number of occasions when there are no or few pawns and no or few minors to care for the king. The distinction with minor pieces is that, while minors deserve a bonus for any square of the shelter, adjacent or not to the king, heavy pieces are due a bonus only when they are on squares adjacent to the king. It does not matter at that if those squares are in front, on the same rank, or behind the king, such shelter is always useful.

But of course, bonus will be much lower. I would give 10cps for a rook adjacent to the king and 5cps for a queen adjacent to the king. It is not much, but sometimes it might make the distinction.

[d]8/6k1/5qp1/8/6P1/7P/6R1/6K1 w - - 0 58
Rg2 and Qf6 are due a bonus.

[d]6q1/6k1/6p1/8/6P1/5RKP/8/8 w - - 0 58
Rf3 and Qg8 are also due a bonus.

How stupid and funny you think such an idea might be?

[tpetzke]

I found in general that giving a bonus for pieces protecting the king does not work well unless there is danger for the king.

If the king is already safe giving a bonus for a piece further protecting it failed for me. I first calculate a penalty for one side if his king is under attack and then I reduce this penalty when pieces protect the king. But this reduction will never turn into a a positive score. This works for me.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I found in general that giving a bonus for pieces protecting the king does not work well unless there is danger for the king.

If the king is already safe giving a bonus for a piece further protecting it failed for me. I first calculate a penalty for one side if his king is under attack and then I reduce this penalty when pieces protect the king. But this reduction will never turn into a a positive score. This works for me.

Have no clue about that, it is all a matter of tuning.

[tpetzke]

No, it is not all about tuning. It is a general principle. Shall I give a bonus for a piece protecting the king even if the king is safe.

You suggest yes, and I tried it long time ago and it did not work well.

It is a question what to do with your pieces. Is it smart to encourage your pieces to hang around your king that is already safe or would you rather use them to do some damage or launch an attack.

An engine does what it is told to do. It has no concept of "this is obvious silly and not what I meant". So one has to be very precise or you will be very surprised what stupid moves an engine will play.

[arjuntemurnikar]

No, it is not all about tuning.

Don't bother to explain yourself. Lyudmil uses this argument every time when facts contradict his "great" intuition. He means that he is right no matter what, and if you tried his idea and it failed, then you are wrong, not he. Classic Lyudmil.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

No, it is not all about tuning. It is a general principle. Shall I give a bonus for a piece protecting the king even if the king is safe.

You suggest yes, and I tried it long time ago and it did not work well.

It is a question what to do with your pieces. Is it smart to encourage your pieces to hang around your king that is already safe or would you rather use them to do some damage or launch an attack.

An engine does what it is told to do. It has no concept of "this is obvious silly and not what I meant". So one has to be very precise or you will be very surprised what stupid moves an engine will play.

You can not specify too much, you either give the bonus or not give it. Psqt and attacks will score higher for a minor than that same minor being in the shelter, so I do not see the problem for that not working. If the minor can not attack or be better placed, it has a good role to play in the shelter, even though the shelter might be safe enough. That is why I say, it is a matter of tuning.

This might not work in a particualr engine, like yours or some other, but as a general rule it should work. If your engine scores too low minors psqt and attacks, then giving a bonus for shelter would not do well, as the piece will stay there. Otherwise, it should work.

[Joerg Oster]

This will be my last topic for today, it is just the heat that spurs you on. Hopefully, the mods will not impose a daily limit on messages soon.

Anyhow, everyone knows that minor pieces on squares of the shelter are due some bonus for protecting the king. If a pawn in the shelter gets some 50cps bonus on average for protecting the king, a minor piece will get some 15cps, so roughly 1/3.

As king safety is very important, heavy pieces are also an alternative shelter on a number of occasions when there are no or few pawns and no or few minors to care for the king. The distinction with minor pieces is that, while minors deserve a bonus for any square of the shelter, adjacent or not to the king, heavy pieces are due a bonus only when they are on squares adjacent to the king. It does not matter at that if those squares are in front, on the same rank, or behind the king, such shelter is always useful.

But of course, bonus will be much lower. I would give 10cps for a rook adjacent to the king and 5cps for a queen adjacent to the king. It is not much, but sometimes it might make the distinction.

[d]8/6k1/5qp1/8/6P1/7P/6R1/6K1 w - - 0 58
Rg2 and Qf6 are due a bonus.

[d]6q1/6k1/6p1/8/6P1/5RKP/8/8 w - - 0 58
Rf3 and Qg8 are also due a bonus.

How stupid and funny you think such an idea might be?

Hi Lyudmil,

interesting idea. But why would you give the rook a high er bonus than the queen? I would just do the opposite.