Is that reference correct? Good, I will fix my signature to give proper credit!Adam Hair wrote:Don, I hope you don't mind this inane and off-topic response:
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons." - Kang and Kudos
Don
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Is that reference correct? Good, I will fix my signature to give proper credit!Adam Hair wrote:Don, I hope you don't mind this inane and off-topic response:
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons." - Kang and Kudos
So? You think that if one doesn't build his own house from scratch, he is not supposed to talk about it?diep wrote:We already realized you never built your own program.zamar wrote:If white's king is on the fifth rank in a middlegame positions and queens are still on board, I'd say that >99% of cases the game is lost. So penalty of one rook seems fully justified for me. Search should be able to handle the rest <1% of cases.
Ah then it's even closer than i thought.jdart wrote:I currently only use PSQ for the King in the endgame, so that doesn't apply here.
--Jon
Just to clarify I was talking only about the king safety of white. Black also has a penalty for king safety, as the king is in the center and has a damaged pawn shield,, and the white queen is eyeing the d7 square (this is static of couse black plays OOO and all is gone).diep wrote:Ah then it's even closer than i thought.jdart wrote:I currently only use PSQ for the King in the endgame, so that doesn't apply here.
--Jon
1.085 from Diep + 0.65 == 1.735 pawn penalty versus 1.38 for Arasan.
Just 0.35 pawn difference.
Indeed. I tried several ways of modifying my king safety eval to account for side to move. But no success so far (testing in 1000 games and looking for an improvement over 1 stdev at least).yl84 wrote: The side to move can have a large effect in king safety; if it was Black's turn to move in the initial position, my programme gives 10 pawns for Black.
Yes, my king safety in a nutshell is count * sum(weight). so if it's our turn to play decrement count by 1 (if not already null): that was my first attempt. it failed!yl84 wrote:I think that side to move bonus should be related to the number of pieces which can be added quickly to the attack.
By playing lots of games at super fast time control, with a nice parralelized command line tool, like cutechess-cli. *and* to avoid hasty conclusions if the score is within the error bar (this is so tempting and so dangerous).But how to measure it?
The coding part is quite trivial and takes less than a minute to write, and perhaps another 2 minutes to debug in a few positions to make sure it works. Then the real pain begins: hours and hours of testing...Is it worth coding?