Skip to content
Permalink
Browse files

@Vizvezdenec's suggestion. Bench: 3084784

  • Loading branch information...
31m059 committed Jan 8, 2019
1 parent 3ec59d1 commit fc2c6c4afcf3fcea9dd80b97545993a1af6c7a6c
Showing with 2 additions and 3 deletions.
  1. +2 −3 src/evaluate.cpp
@@ -553,9 +553,8 @@ namespace {
// Bonus for restricting their piece moves
restricted = attackedBy[Them][ALL_PIECES]
& ~stronglyProtected
& attackedBy[Us][ALL_PIECES];
score += make_score(7, 7) * popcount(restricted & ~attackedBy[Us][KING])
+ make_score(0, 7) * popcount(restricted & attackedBy[Us][KING]);
& ((attackedBy[Us][ALL_PIECES] & ~attackedBy[Us][KING]) | attackedBy2[Us]);
score += RestrictedPiece * popcount(restricted);

// Bonus for enemy unopposed weak pawns
if (pos.pieces(Us, ROOK, QUEEN))

2 comments on commit fc2c6c4

@Vizvezdenec

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

replied Jan 8, 2019

actually I think that you should do this for what you did in second test - leave only eg restriction value (after all restricting enemy with king is mostly useful in endgame) but make mg value 0 (or maybe negative!?).
Hope that I'm not too annoying :)

@31m059

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

replied Jan 8, 2019

@Vizvezdenec Not annoying at all! These are very helpful ideas--thank you.

Please sign in to comment.
You can’t perform that action at this time.