When you say 'the value for minors' I assume you are speaking of the material score. In the evaluation, as you probably know too well, it all gets added up to a single number. When you have 3 minors vs a queen and you are just considering the material side of things it may seem the queen is overestimated, but the 3 minors will often add up to more when considering all the other terms - like mobility. If you consider the average value of the queen vs the average value of a minor it should get closer to a GMs assessment I think. It's just that estimating the average value of a piece is not so easy.lkaufman wrote:I feel that if a program does not see White's edge in the given position it is probably just undervaluing minor pieces. However a specific bonus for three minors vs. queen is the easiest fix here, I'm pretty sure your program must consistently overvalue the queen's side of this equation. It remains a mystery to me why the optimum value for minors (compared to majors) seems to be lower for engines than for humans. The values (for minors) that tested as best in Rybka are clearly too low to human eyes. That's why I always used Rybka 3 Human rather than the default for analysis of human games, it had the values much closer to what we human GMs think best.
Larry
This is really one of the big problems with writing and tuning the evaluation, the terms are not orthogonal.