Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 02:20:31 09/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
>>>>Here is a simple attempt: >>>> >>>>[D]2k5/1r6/3p1p2/n2p1p2/P2PpP2/R3P3/1BK5/8 b - - >>>> >>>>Here black has several moves to try, one which liquidates into a pawn up >>>>(but dead lost) ending. Rxb2 Kxb2 Nc4+ Ka2 Nxa3 Kxa3 and white is a pawn >>>>down, but winning easily. >>>> >>>>Once you start with Rxb2, you are committed. As if you try to back out and >>>>not play Nc4 and Nxa3, you are an exchange down. And if you do recover the >>>>material, you are dead lost. Add another such forced capture/recapture and >>>>you have burned 6 plies. You won't see white winning all the black pawns >>>>and winning. >>> >>> >>>Note that I don't say there are not better moves for black here. The point >>>was to show a move choice that commits you to a course of action that gets >>>worse and worse as you go deeper and deeper. >> >>I think that this is not a good example because white has an obvious positional >>advantage for programs(white has a passed pawn when black has 2 pawns on the >>same file for file d,f >> >>Uri > > >Pick any such position you want, where one side is a pawn up but the other is >winning. I have seen many. That is one example where if you trade, you lose. >And it is one example of where one extra pawn does _not_ mean you are winning. >Here it means you are losing and badly. > From a players point of view *white*is a pawn up, the a-pawn and therefor winning, just like Ed said. A player would not count the additional blocked black pawns. Kind regards Bernhard
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.