Of course, everyone is welcome to check it and report the results.syzygy wrote:And I should add that before trying this out, it must be determined whether the concept is not already implicit in other pawn evaluation terms. If it is, a new term would merely slow down parameter tuning by adding a redundant parameter.syzygy wrote:The real question is whether awarding points to this flexibility gains Elo. Only if it does, the concept is "valid". That it does might be intuitively obvious to you, but this is not how top engines make progress nowadays.
Obviously, there any redundancies should be avoided for precise implementation.
All those principles I have tried to formulate have been tested in my games against engines, and whatever games I have been able to win have been due to the engine largely neglecting the existence of such terms, while myself making use of them. For me this is experience, I test in this way, do not run games against other engines.
Engines have made substantial progress in the areas and using the terms in widespread consumption (like double, open files, etc.), and not a substantial progress, or entirely lacking, in areas and using eval terms not of widespread use and with accentuated positional connotations.
PS. Btw., one of the very reasons for the inexistence until now of similar positional terms is the simple fact that engines are not tested in real games against humans, and thus the human feedback has been completely missing from engine development in recent years. You see and analyse some engine losses, but it is difficult to find there anything even closely related to the human approach of positional understanding, and the related terms.