Author: Tim Mirabile
Date: 14:04:41 07/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1998 at 15:17:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Ed faked around with the vaue of a pawn to avoid the piece for pawns trade. I >used to muck around with the piece and pawn values to discourage this. [...] Yes, I don't think it is possible to account for this by mucking around with piece and pawn values. Otherwise, if you make an adjustment to account for rook vs two minor pieces, you are probably going to mess up the value of the exchange, or various combinations of things for a queen, etc. I think the key is that when you have an unusual balance of material, positional factors gain in weight vs pawns. For example, when having a rook and two extra pawns vs two minor pieces, weak pawns can be much worse than usual since a rook cannot defend a pawn attacked by two minor pieces. Or if the side with the rook has strong connected passers which overwhelm the minor pieces, it may not matter if the side with the rook only has one extra pawn or maybe even no extra pawns. I think what happened in the Anand game is that the active bishops and rook really outweighed Rebel's many connected passers. As Tal used to say when he made a move which left three pieces hanging, "They can only take one at a time". In this game, Rebel had a lot of passers, but he could only push one at a time. Also, the bishops did a pretty good job of holding up these pawns, and the rook on c2 along with the bishops created threats against the king, and the white rooks were not very active.
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.