Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:45:59 06/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 1998 at 15:41:28, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On June 29, 1998 at 13:50:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Those are my "guess" as to how we get this one. Crafty doesn't solve it, but it >>is *close*. IE at depth=12, Rf7=+2.3, while Rb4 is +1.6, and Rb4 is getting >>better every iteration (13=1.86 for example). So it *might* just be a >>positional thing that I do better in CB (or maybe not better in CB for all I >>know.) I *hate* tactical positions that can be solved positionally as it is >>never convincing to me that the program is really "right." And Harry has my >>old WAC book, so I'm not even sure what Rb4 is supposed to accomplish, since >>black is already winning. It looks like a variation on WAC2 in fact, where >>cxb4 leads to two strong connected black passers. > >The position is a potential fortress position. Maybe it is not one where there >is only one move now that stops white from setting up the fortress, but >something like 1. ... a4 gives white a fortress for free. > >The point is that black's bishop is going nowhere, as it stands it is not going >to take part in the game at all. And the pawns can be blockaded and the rook >shut out of the k-side. > >If white doesn't capture the rook, I bet black plays Ra4 and Ra2. > >bruce Thats probably why the CB PV didn't like taking the rook, because of the two pawns, but if white eschews the rook, then it sneaks in to a2 and causes problems there... maybe this isn't as hard as I've always thought it was looking at Crafty's analysis. Maybe Crafty just doesn't quite "understand" it yet. although it certainly understands, even after a short search, that white will *not* take the rook happily due to the two passed pawns swarming down.
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.