- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

My search algorithms move

#2

Interesting.
Two remarks:

I disagree with R = 4.5 P. Two rooks are generally stronger than a queen. See e.g.
https://lichess.org/@/adapodadeiii/blog/endgame-queen-up-against-the-rooks/kgeSecMY

I disagree with B = N = 3P. Bishops are generally stronger than knights.
Having the bishop's pair often makes up for a deficit of 1 pawn. I would put B = 3.25 P

Interesting. Two remarks: I disagree with R = 4.5 P. Two rooks are generally stronger than a queen. See e.g. https://lichess.org/@/adapodadeiii/blog/endgame-queen-up-against-the-rooks/kgeSecMY I disagree with B = N = 3P. Bishops are generally stronger than knights. Having the bishop's pair often makes up for a deficit of 1 pawn. I would put B = 3.25 P
#3

@tpr said in #2:

I disagree with R = 4.5 P. Two rooks are generally stronger than a queen. See e.g.
https://lichess.org/@/adapodadeiii/blog/endgame-queen-up-against-the-rooks/kgeSecMY

I disagree with B = N = 3P. Bishops are generally stronger than knights.
Having the bishop's pair often makes up for a deficit of 1 pawn. I would put B = 3.25 P

The mathematical value of pieces is only a rough approximation and doesn't work without a comprehensive assessment of the position. The queen is better in the opening because she's more agile than the rooks, especially when there are no open files. Bishops are better in open positions and when playing on two flanks. In a closed position and playing on one flank, knights are better, as they move on both the white and black squares.

@tpr said in #2: > I disagree with R = 4.5 P. Two rooks are generally stronger than a queen. See e.g. > https://lichess.org/@/adapodadeiii/blog/endgame-queen-up-against-the-rooks/kgeSecMY > > I disagree with B = N = 3P. Bishops are generally stronger than knights. > Having the bishop's pair often makes up for a deficit of 1 pawn. I would put B = 3.25 P The mathematical value of pieces is only a rough approximation and doesn't work without a comprehensive assessment of the position. The queen is better in the opening because she's more agile than the rooks, especially when there are no open files. Bishops are better in open positions and when playing on two flanks. In a closed position and playing on one flank, knights are better, as they move on both the white and black squares.
#4

@itore said in #3:

I disagree with R = 4.5 P. Two rooks are generally stronger than a queen. See e.g.
https://lichess.org/@/adapodadeiii/blog/endgame-queen-up-against-the-rooks/kgeSecMY

I disagree with B = N = 3P. Bishops are generally stronger than knights.
Having the bishop's pair often makes up for a deficit of 1 pawn. I would put B = 3.25 P

The mathematical value of pieces is only a rough approximation and doesn't work without a comprehensive assessment of the position. The queen is better in the opening because she's more agile than the rooks, especially when there are no open files. Bishops are better in open positions and when playing on two flanks. In a closed position and playing on one flank, knights are better, as they move on both the white and black squares.

Okey

@itore said in #3: > > I disagree with R = 4.5 P. Two rooks are generally stronger than a queen. See e.g. > > https://lichess.org/@/adapodadeiii/blog/endgame-queen-up-against-the-rooks/kgeSecMY > > > > I disagree with B = N = 3P. Bishops are generally stronger than knights. > > Having the bishop's pair often makes up for a deficit of 1 pawn. I would put B = 3.25 P > > The mathematical value of pieces is only a rough approximation and doesn't work without a comprehensive assessment of the position. The queen is better in the opening because she's more agile than the rooks, especially when there are no open files. Bishops are better in open positions and when playing on two flanks. In a closed position and playing on one flank, knights are better, as they move on both the white and black squares. Okey
#5

You link studies that are inaccessible due to being privated. Just wanted to bring this to your attention as it seems unintentional

You link studies that are inaccessible due to being privated. Just wanted to bring this to your attention as it seems unintentional
#6

@b105g said in #5:

You link studies that are inaccessible due to being privated. Just wanted to bring this to your attention as it seems unintentional

Thanks for pointing that out :)

@b105g said in #5: > You link studies that are inaccessible due to being privated. Just wanted to bring this to your attention as it seems unintentional Thanks for pointing that out :)
#7

Unfortunately, the problem with any algorithm in chess is that the human mind doesn't work that way when playing the game. At least in my experience and from talking to people, I never use an algorithm, nor do I think it will be useful to use an algorithm during the game due to time constraint. Humans look at the board and if they have the corresponding patterns the mind will pick up on them and identify weaknesses and possible continuations. We both perceive the immediate state of the board and if things are complicated we work things out by calculation. We gather information and then reassess the position. At least to me, what this means is that after calculating I hope to grasp the position better and have some notion of the logic of the position. Sometimes weaknesses are non-obvious, so with calculation with dig deeper into the position to find them. I never consciously think to myself about the value of the pieces or rarely ever look at the number of defenders or attackers. It's all internalized. So an algorithm can be a good guideline when new players are trying to internalize chess, but for more experienced players it happens automatically. I rarely use words when playing, i.e. speaking to myself, it all happens non-verbally.

Unfortunately, the problem with any algorithm in chess is that the human mind doesn't work that way when playing the game. At least in my experience and from talking to people, I never use an algorithm, nor do I think it will be useful to use an algorithm during the game due to time constraint. Humans look at the board and if they have the corresponding patterns the mind will pick up on them and identify weaknesses and possible continuations. We both perceive the immediate state of the board and if things are complicated we work things out by calculation. We gather information and then reassess the position. At least to me, what this means is that after calculating I hope to grasp the position better and have some notion of the logic of the position. Sometimes weaknesses are non-obvious, so with calculation with dig deeper into the position to find them. I never consciously think to myself about the value of the pieces or rarely ever look at the number of defenders or attackers. It's all internalized. So an algorithm can be a good guideline when new players are trying to internalize chess, but for more experienced players it happens automatically. I rarely use words when playing, i.e. speaking to myself, it all happens non-verbally.
#8

I've been playing chess for almost 50 years and have a completely different perspective. Algorithms make it easier to find a good move in most positions, especially when we don't know what to play. Once we learn them, we'll do certain things automatically. Out of curiosity, how long have you been playing? What's your rating in the practical game?

I've been playing chess for almost 50 years and have a completely different perspective. Algorithms make it easier to find a good move in most positions, especially when we don't know what to play. Once we learn them, we'll do certain things automatically. Out of curiosity, how long have you been playing? What's your rating in the practical game?
#9

You've mentioned a book which I can't seem to find, I'd very much like to buy it, where would it be available?

You've mentioned a book which I can't seem to find, I'd very much like to buy it, where would it be available?
#10

My books are unique :) One way to make them special is that you can only buy them from me. You can get an autograph or a dedication for them. Contact witaliss@wp.pl. https://witalis-sapis.com/en/homepage/
The terms offered by publishers simply didn't suit me. I decided to do it my own way.

My books are unique :) One way to make them special is that you can only buy them from me. You can get an autograph or a dedication for them. Contact witaliss@wp.pl. https://witalis-sapis.com/en/homepage/ The terms offered by publishers simply didn't suit me. I decided to do it my own way.