Author: Günther Simon
Date: 03:24:37 12/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2005 at 06:05:22, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On December 28, 2005 at 16:07:00, Eelco de Groot wrote: > >>Hello Vasik, >> >>Being just a weak 1300 clubplayer, I think I nevertheless would agree with you >>that White is better and I would not like to have to play with the black pieces >>in this position. The main characteristic of the position seems to me that Black >>has very few plausible moves (even looking superficially) and White has many? If >>you had some sort of static evaluator that could count the number of >>superficially plausible moves somehow, that would give White a headstart here. >>No idea if that could be constructed though in a static eval but with a 1 ply >>search plus qsearch it would be different already? For Black I see only >>plausible moves Qg5, Qh5, Rh6 (backward Rookmoves should maybe get a penalty >>unless they attack something or defend an attacked piece, in this case the Rh6 >>defends f6 but the pawn is already well protected. The black bishops can go to >>the backrank but maybe that also should not count, unless there they attack >>something or defend something that needs defending. pawn e6 can go forward to >>e5, but that gives up two very important fields on d5 and f5 for the the White >>Knight on e3. Practically every other Black move loses the piece or creates a >>double pawn after Queen exchange etc. >> >>I could do some sort of similar calculation for White but I think it is obvious >>that White has many more plausible choices for every single piece. Even if you >>discount moves backward for pieces other than Knights, every piece from White >>can still move. Well, you asked for some "static" evaluation of the position, I >>tried to give one. But I don't know if it is possible to implement such a >>"plausible mobility" evaluator... >> >> Best Regards, >> Eelco > >I think it's a question of the potential of the position. Black is optically >pretty good, but the question is what's next. It's not easy to figure this out, >for humans or computers .. > >Vas > >> >>[D]8/1b2b1k1/pp1ppp2/nPq5/P1P1P3/2QRNPP1/8/1N2KB1r b - - 0 1 >> Humans' sense for 'optical advantages' always had a lot of flaws ;) I would say it relies too much on learned patterns that overwhelm much deeper aspects of complicated positions, like this one. I believe chess players neurons just get mad about the first row with W: Nb1, Ke1, Bf1 and B: Rh1 and the following emptyness in the second row. Probably this is already enough to cover that White is a pawn up and Blacks bishops don't bite :) Best regards, Guenther
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.