Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:50:47 10/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2001 at 16:20:44, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 01, 2001 at 15:06:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 01, 2001 at 14:28:35, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>>No but most of the endgames are not pawn endgames. >>> >>>I do not say that I never saw Junior play endgames. >>>I say that I never saw it plays pawn endgames against humans. >>> >>>It is not enough to get an endgame in order to take advantage of Junior's >>>weaknesses in some kind of pawn endgames and GM's need also to get into >>>positions when pawn endgames that Junior does not understand are relevant in the >>>search. >>> >>>Amir also did not say that endgames are not important and that he has nothing to >>>fix in endgames and he talked about pawn endgames. >>> >>>I remember that Junior got endgames that are not pawn endgames in at least one >>>of it's tournament game against humans. >>> >>>It was an endgame when both sides had knights and trading for pawn endgames was >>>not relevant in that case. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>That is the critical case to handle however. Suppose it is a pawn down. And >>it finds a way to trade knights and win that pawn back. And it ends up in a >>dead lost pawn ending because of the opponent's distant majority... >> >>If you don't know a lot about king and pawn endings, you had better _not_ get >>into king and pawn + 1 minor piece endings. It is _all_ about king and pawns >>there... > >It depends on the endgame and there are cases when pawn endgames with distant >pawn majority are not relevant. > >I remember that in that game Junior was a pawn up and pawn endgame was simply >not relevant. > >Junior drew the game but not because of not evaluating correctly pawn endgame >but because it overestimated it's two connected pawns(I remember a position of >KNPP vs KNP from that game and the opponent could sacrifice it's pawn and >capture Junior's pawns because the king of Junior was at long distance from the >pawns to defend them). Wait. You are arguing with yourself here. First you said "not because of not evaluating correctly pawn endgames" and then follow that up with "it overestimated...". That is _exactly_ the point. That is an incorrect evaluation. A program should know that connected passers are stronger when there is material on the board. As material comes off, they become weaker and easier to stop. And split passers become stronger. But in this case, if you set the position up and type "score" crafty says -1.3, which says black is basically a pawn ahead, based on the material + positional evaluation. Black is one pawn up, so the two connected passers are getting .3 which sounds right here. With rooks or queen on the board, they are a much bigger problem for white. > >I do not remember the exact position but it was something similiar to this >position > >[D]8/8/P1k3n1/6pp/8/8/5KN1/8 w - - 0 1 > >Uri
This page took 0.01 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.