Has anyone done some meaningful testing of the Larry Kaufman material values? In particular, does decreasing knight values as pawns come off the board or increasing rook values for the same seem to help?
Perhaps Bob has done a nice long, meaningful run on his machines?
Mark
Testing of Kaufman Material Values
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
Tracy wrote some code to do the things Larry suggested. However we found nothing at all that made any difference. The things he suggested with respect to pawns and pieces, redundant pieces, coordinated pieces, etc, all had no significant effect, plus or minus.mjlef wrote:Has anyone done some meaningful testing of the Larry Kaufman material values? In particular, does decreasing knight values as pawns come off the board or increasing rook values for the same seem to help?
Perhaps Bob has done a nice long, meaningful run on his machines?
Mark
May well work for others, but for us it was a non-working idea. Note that many terms are sort of redundant. If you evaluate mobility for a rook, then rook on open file scoring overlaps, since you have more mobility on an open file. And you have more mobility as pawns come off. So the overall effect probably is sensitive to what you are already evaluating...
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:07 pm
- Location: Russia
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
From my test: Rybka 3 without material imbalance values - minus 68 points Elo.
-
- Posts: 718
- Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:59 pm
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
"material imbalance values"? By this, do you mean RP vs BN, etc?
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:07 pm
- Location: Russia
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
Yes, I mean RP vs BN, PPP vs B or N, and full complex of another combinations. Rybka 3 calcullate this values in start of engine. Function contain approximately 200 lines of code.MattieShoes wrote:"material imbalance values"? By this, do you mean RP vs BN, etc?
-
- Posts: 10296
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
I suspect that you can get most of this improvement without material imbalance tables only by changing the value of pieces.Osipov Jury wrote:From my test: Rybka 3 without material imbalance values - minus 68 points Elo.
Uri
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
Yes. Ideas like a second knight is not as valuable as the first, due to redundancy, etc. Which is an extension of the usual BN vs RP is bad. But it is not quite as bad if you have a second knight as getting rid of one also removes a little bit of redundancy. Other ideas include "queen is more valuable with more pawns on the board, rooks are more valuable as pawns come off" and such.MattieShoes wrote:"material imbalance values"? By this, do you mean RP vs BN, etc?
I tested the queen idea using a bonus of 0 to 12 for each pawn on the board. This only does anything when you have a Q vs 2R for example. Since there could be 16 pawns, the bonus went up to 12*16. The result was absolutely no Elo change. I played 32,000 games for each of those bonus values, 0, 1, ..., 12. Zero change. All ended within 3 Elo of each other, which is well inside the error bar for 32,000 games.
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
I agree. We have done a few million games of testing to choose our current piece values. After that, none of Larry's suggestions have helped at all. Static values are far easier/faster to use than dynamic values. And if the static values are as accurate, there's no reason to not use them.Uri Blass wrote:I suspect that you can get most of this improvement without material imbalance tables only by changing the value of pieces.Osipov Jury wrote:From my test: Rybka 3 without material imbalance values - minus 68 points Elo.
Uri
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:08 pm
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
Programs with material tables tend to encode lost of knowledge handled by rules in other programs (like a KB vs KP is most like a draw, and no real advantage to the B side). I wonder how much of the rating increase is due to these simple rules, versus the full board material imbalance terms?
-
- Posts: 27808
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: Testing of Kaufman Material Values
My suspicion is that most of the Elo difference is caused by the Bishop pair. I assume that its value is implemented in the material tables; as it could be implemented there by simply initializing the tables differently, it would be silly to implement it by a seperate eval rule, which would take execution time. But of course any self-respecting program that does not use materia tables, still implements the Bishop pair through a dedicated rule.
So it is really a bit of a meaningless comparison. You cannot switch of the subtle effects of the material table without removing very basic knowledge that almost very engine has.
So it is really a bit of a meaningless comparison. You cannot switch of the subtle effects of the material table without removing very basic knowledge that almost very engine has.