Author: martin fierz
Date: 08:38:17 06/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
>I think the edge of Q+N by better players is due to the fact that in order to
>win your game against a lower rated opponent you have to create inequalities
>('life') in the position.
of course it is always easier to play for a win with some kind of inequality.
but this does not explain why the better players choose the side with Q+N - if
all they wanted was an inequality, they would choose Q+N or Q+B at random.
therefore, the conclusion is that better players actively choose the
Q+N side because they believe this rule. as i said, watson is critical of
the rule itself - he claims that the Q+N side is scoring well because
the better players more often choose the Q+N side, so he thinks that this
is some collective hallucination of the strong players who blindly follow
this rule because this strong player 'xy' stated that Q+N is better. an
interesting thought. if lots of strong players suddenly started playing a
dubious opening then it might also score well in the chessbase statistics :-)
>But if your
>opponent has a weak kings position the Q+N is definitelly worth much, at least
>in inner peace and gained thinking time.
and of course you are right here - Q+N is very strong when attacking the enemy
king.
cheers
martin
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.