Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:50:46 10/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2001 at 18:43:59, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 01, 2001 at 17:38:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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??? > >I posted a position and the problem in the game was that the evaluation of a >similiar endgame position was not correct. > >The problem was not wrong evaluation of pawn endgame because pawn endgame means >that there are no knights in the board. > >Uri In a position where you have one knight per side, the search will encounter and have to evaluate a _huge_ number of pawn endgames. Because two plies is enough to eliminate the two knights. So the program _will_ have to be able to correctly evaluate pawn endings, or it will trade the knights to win a pawn and lose the ending...
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.