.
.
.
Writing the previous post I was pleasantly surprised that the proposed algorithm "The position to strive for is to maximize the difference between the current potential of your own pieces and the current potential of the pieces of the opponent" lead to a tendency to walk towards the center without any additional programming. After some thinking I realized that this very same algorithm would create a few other tendencies as well without extra programming:
- the tendency for a pawn to walk to the promotion square, which brings him closer to its full potential.
- the tendency to capture pieces.
- the tendency to trap pieces.
- the tendency to occupy open lines and outposts.
- the tendency to base exchanges on the dynamic value of a piece.
- the tendency to trap (mate) the king. Maybe this should be stimulated by letting the potential of the enemy drop to zero if that happens. This would cause the game to go in the right direction any time.
First of all I have an important problem to solve. A problem that I haven't even formulated yet.
What is the exact relationship between tempo's and squares?
The fact that you can only make one move at the time makes that the squares don't have an equal value for a piece. The fact that you don't occupy a square 7 tempo's away is not as pressing on the performance of a piece as the fact that you don't own a square just 2 tempo's away. But how many squares of the 7th order have the same value as a square of the 6th order (=6 tempo's away)?
After some thought it becomes evident that it isn't sufficient to look at the future of one piece only. It is the combined effort of different pieces that constructs a cage in which pieces can be trapped. This needs separate investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment