Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:38:23 10/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2001 at 17:34:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 01, 2001 at 16:50:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > > >Amir did not say that there were no problem in evaluation in the endgame and the >point is that the practical problem was not pawn endgames. > >I did not say that he did not care about endgames but that he did not care about >pawn endgames and thought that there are more important things to improve. > >Uri Doesn't the game you posted sort of invalidate that statement???
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.