Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:52:52 09/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2001 at 05:20:31, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>>>>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 Human, right. But set the position up and ask your favorite program which side is winning with a simple static eval...
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.