💡📝Dmitry Eskin wrote on Wed, Nov 30, 2016 01:35 AM UTC:
Maybe, it will be better, if the Fairy-Max will have not static, but dynamic evaluating of pieces, according the same criterias, that I use for balancing new units (you may read it at the end of main post). It is very experimental way, but if all weights are correct, an evaluation of positions will no depends on user's subjective values and mistakes. The basic idea is that the 60-80% of the piece's value is determined by its average attack/speed and can be pre-calculated at the beginning of game, but then add a positional part of values to each piece depending on it's current position, attacks and moves limiting by obstacles, activity (value of attacking squares), acceleration, agility and potential. There is no fact that it will work as universal, but if there is successful, it will be great.
Now, if any chess variant (with different armies) is imbalanced, there is no assurance that it is objective not only because of poor openings but because the engine makes decisions depending on evaluations of positions, which depend on the user's subjective values of his own pieces.If the user is wrong by his values, then the engine is wrong by its evaluations. And I believe that adding right positional criterias make the openings much better without dependings on the openings book. Because any passive openings like c3 or d3 will impair the positional power of own pieces, blocking their current moves and abilities. For example, move c3 kills orthodox Knight's potential to attacking squares d5 and a4, limits its speed and agility (moves x threats) to attacking b5 and e4 and commonly is the very bad move, except cases that square of d4 is under opponent's attack and it is important to defend this square or to prepare active move of d4 (not d3). There is no need to calculate any deep variants to understand for the engine that this move is terrible.
Maybe, it will be better to create position's evaluating special config, in which user can define values of many position criterias (weights) if he want to correct the engine's playing style.
And the next idea is to improve endgames by learning the engine any type positions. For example, user edit the position, place some pieces and then launch the analysis and the program automately generate "Nalimov's tables" for the endgames with these peaces. I find that now the engine have several problems to checkmating a bare king with the Wyvern or even with the several Queen-type units (sometimes make stalemating instead checkmating), although this is a problem only if there is very fast timing control. But as for me, it's very interesting to explore the endgames of Dragon (Chancellor) versus Griffin (Rook) and many others with new units, because these endgames haven't any existing Nalimov's tables yet.
Maybe, it will be better, if the Fairy-Max will have not static, but dynamic evaluating of pieces, according the same criterias, that I use for balancing new units (you may read it at the end of main post). It is very experimental way, but if all weights are correct, an evaluation of positions will no depends on user's subjective values and mistakes. The basic idea is that the 60-80% of the piece's value is determined by its average attack/speed and can be pre-calculated at the beginning of game, but then add a positional part of values to each piece depending on it's current position, attacks and moves limiting by obstacles, activity (value of attacking squares), acceleration, agility and potential. There is no fact that it will work as universal, but if there is successful, it will be great.
Now, if any chess variant (with different armies) is imbalanced, there is no assurance that it is objective not only because of poor openings but because the engine makes decisions depending on evaluations of positions, which depend on the user's subjective values of his own pieces.If the user is wrong by his values, then the engine is wrong by its evaluations. And I believe that adding right positional criterias make the openings much better without dependings on the openings book. Because any passive openings like c3 or d3 will impair the positional power of own pieces, blocking their current moves and abilities. For example, move c3 kills orthodox Knight's potential to attacking squares d5 and a4, limits its speed and agility (moves x threats) to attacking b5 and e4 and commonly is the very bad move, except cases that square of d4 is under opponent's attack and it is important to defend this square or to prepare active move of d4 (not d3). There is no need to calculate any deep variants to understand for the engine that this move is terrible.
Maybe, it will be better to create position's evaluating special config, in which user can define values of many position criterias (weights) if he want to correct the engine's playing style.
And the next idea is to improve endgames by learning the engine any type positions. For example, user edit the position, place some pieces and then launch the analysis and the program automately generate "Nalimov's tables" for the endgames with these peaces. I find that now the engine have several problems to checkmating a bare king with the Wyvern or even with the several Queen-type units (sometimes make stalemating instead checkmating), although this is a problem only if there is very fast timing control. But as for me, it's very interesting to explore the endgames of Dragon (Chancellor) versus Griffin (Rook) and many others with new units, because these endgames haven't any existing Nalimov's tables yet.