Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:15:50 05/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2002 at 10:46:09, Peter Berger wrote: >On May 02, 2002 at 04:05:00, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 01, 2002 at 19:18:15, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On May 01, 2002 at 10:51:41, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>I do not think that the word sacrifice is correct here. >>>> >>>>4 pawns is considered to be more than a piece so the player that sacrificed was >>>>yace but it seemed that yace was outsearched because yace evaluats the position >>>>at move 26 also as better for hiarcs. >>>> >>>>There are 2 possibilities: >>>> >>>>1)Yace was lucky to be outsearched and got a winning position that it did not >>>>understand. >>>> >>>>2)Hiarcs blundered some moves after getting a big advantage by winning 4 pawns >>>>for a piece. >>>> >>> >>>As both engines agreed for some time on evaluation 1.) is somehow closer to the >>>truth . I definitely disagree with your assessment about piece value though. In >>>middlegame ceteris paribus I'd take the piece over the pawns any time. >>> >>>Peter >> >>piece is usually better than 3 pawns in the middle game but here we are talking >>about 4 pawns. >> >>I do not think that piece is usually better than 4 pawns in the middle game. >> >>It is possible to check it by comp-comp game when one program plays without a >>piece and another program plays without 4 pawns. >> >>Suppose that white plays without a2,b2,c2,d2 and black plays without >>the bishop c8. >> >>Do you expect white to win the game? >> >>I remember that I did some comp-comp games in similiar conditions(it is possible >>that I removed different pawns and different piece) and the side without the 4 >>pawns scored less than 50%. >> >>Uri > >I am not sure; I think the problem with testing this is the ceteris paribus >here. If you take a2,b2,c2,d2 you also create three connected passers on a,b and >c for black (significant additional positional advantage). Also the start >position isn't exactly a middlegame one. > >Look at the Hiarcs-Yace game. Progs evaluated about +1 for the side with the >pawns. Any human would prefer the piece here I believe. Cases when one side have 4 pawns for a piece are rare in human games so I understand if humans do not know to evaluate them correctly but I do not think that most humans are going to prefer the piece in the hiarcs-yace game. Passed pawns is a natural result of having 4 pawns for a piece so you can consider a case when the side with the pawns does not have passed pawns as a positional advantage for the side with the piece. In the game yace also had passed pawns. I did not analyze what went wrong so I do not know but it is possible that the position was equal and hiarcs did some mistake in the endgame. I do not say that it is the case but I cannot know only by looking at the game without doing a lot of analysis and I guess that I am not going to do a lot of analysis. Uri
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.