Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:57:58 06/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 1998 at 01:08:50, Komputer Korner wrote:
>Well, GM Spielmann was correct. In the 30's he enunciated an idea that
>in general 2R+N is equal to R+2B. Of course it all depends on the
>position, but I wanted to test this out so I took Knut Neven's great
>1,300,000 game database ( very low double ratio) and did 2 searches in
>ChessBase to test Spielmann's theory. I searched using the search on
>materiel feature only in Chessbase 6. The first search had white with
>the 2 rooks and the second search had white with the 2 bishops. The
>first statistic was 56% score for white and in the 2nd case, it was 55
>%. This shows that Spielmann was correct. So what do we conclude
>from this? Simply that if you are in a position where you have a
>chance to get into this materiel balance, don't be afraid to play it
>from either side, all else being equal. Please note that from the
>classical point count rule the 2R+N =13 points and 2B + R =11 points,
>so that a priori, one would think that the 2R+N is much better. Such
>is not the case as Spielmann pointed out.
>--
This advice is more than a little debatable you realize. First of all
Spielmann isn't exactly a reference in positional play so his opinions
pertaining to such should be double-checked, triple-checked, and even
then
accepted with a grain of salt. Spielmann was a super tactician who
played
many beautiful games but who also held a VERY loose idea of material
balances. Your reference to the statistical search of this through a
game
database cannot be accepted so simply as statistics don't say very much
about what happened. Let me give you a quick example: suppose a very
attractive but risky line becomes fashionable for a while. For 20 some
games it is making a killing and statistically it is something like 80%.
Then, a brilliant and clear-cut refutation is found and appears in one
game, maybe two for the die-hard player who won't accept it. Suddenly it
is no longer played and disappears from top-level chess. Yet,
statistically, according to the database, it is still crushing. You
might
object that this isn't an opening survey, but my point is to say that
statistics cannot just be followed blindly and no doubt there WERE
special
circumstances (passed pawn supported by the bishops, exposed king, poor
pawn structure, etc...) in every one of the above games. Either that, or
someone screwed up. It is complicated though. We are taught that R+B vs.
R+N in an endgame is generally advantageous to the side with the bishop,
so one could argue that tossing in an exchange to the side with the
Knight
should re-establish some sort of an equilibrium, but again I don't
agree.
A rook acting alone is one thing, but two rooks coordinated together is
quite another. Let's just say that if optimal activity were provided for
both sides, I'd take the rooks any day. Why? Simple: even ignoring the
deadly force of two rooks working together, at the most, the side with
R+2B can attack a single point only twice (one bishop being of the
opposite color), whereas the side with 2R+N can, pending circumstances,
attack a single point 3 times. The same goes for defence. I would say,
yes, it can be an interesting balance, but BE afraid of entering it, and
examine the position carefully before doing so.
Albert Silver
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.