Author: Amir Ban
Date: 01:44:55 08/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 1998 at 22:02:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >This came from quite a few GM conversations a year prior to that, even. IE >in the first Junior game, Crafty evaluates those two pawns as simply two weak >pawns, because each is undefended by a pawn, can't be defended by a pawn, and >can't advance because of black pawns attacking the squares in front of them, >which means an advance turns into an isolated pawn... > >There are times when it is wrong... but in general, such ideas are important. >And they come best from either experience (I did this same analysis in Cray >Blitz because of one particular sicilian where white had no c-pawn, and had >played d5/b5 leaving black's c7 pawn very weak. But we didn't catch that and >the pawn was eventually lost... Lombardy and I had a few long conversations >about such ideas and I refined what I was doing as a result... But there aren't >many that are willing to talk for free and explain and refine such a positional >idea... Lombardy was (although I haven't talked with him in a year or so) as >Roman is (I talk to him regularly, via phone and chatting online)... We need >more of these guys... I also find IM's more willing to talk, and they are also >quite valuable as resources... > > Junior indeed looks at the c+d pawn phalanx as an asset, not as a liability. I was looking at crafty's evals during the game and noted the difference. There are two ways indeed to evaluate this. Junior used to do it the other way, and there was at least one version which contained a conceptual bug in which it was done one way for white, the other for black. The GM's way of looking at this point is interesting and sophisticated. I'll try to convey this when I get around to commenting on this game. Amir
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.