Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: two kinky positions

Author: blass uri

Date: 15:09:30 05/18/00

Go up one level in this thread


On May 18, 2000 at 16:05:17, Ernst A. Heinz wrote:

Hi Ernst,
>Hi Uri,
>
>Please excuse that I mixed up your names and called you
>"Blass" in my previous post.

I am not angry.
>
>> I do not know if you do something right about king safety or if your king
>> safety is too big and it can help to solve some test positions but can cause
>> also some wrong sacrifices in games.
>
>Hopefully, we do something right. I can assure you that I do not tune
>towards test suites but rather towards standard game play. However,
>I do use test suites and test positions to partly verify any changes.
>
>>Here is a test position from the game Yudasin-Junior5 when black almost went
>>wrong by playing Bxh2+
>>
>>[D]r1b1k2r/1pqp1ppp/p1Nbp3/8/4P3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b kq - 0 1
>>
>>Can your program avoid Bxh2+?
>
>If your FEN is correct, this is an easy position for
>"DarkThought WCCC'99". It locks onto dxc6 almost
>instantly and prefers it from iteration #5 onwards.
>
>=Ernst=

My FEN is correct.
I posted this position because part of the top programs have problems with this
position.

They seem to believe that king with no pawns is bad and ignore the fact that
black has development problems.

Junior5 can avoid Bxh2 but only at tournament time control and could fall into
the trap at faster time control.

Junior6a is better and does not fall into this trap even in blitz(because the
value of the pawns is reduced) but it also cannot find some good sacrifices like
the famous sacrifice of Junior against Nimzo in the last WCCC.

Uri



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.