Author: fca
Date: 17:51:03 08/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1998 at 20:08:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 16, 1998 at 19:04:51, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>On August 16, 1998 at 16:17:51, fca wrote: >>> If we up R to 16 it also produces a more reasonable result v Q, as >>> (ignoring 2 rooks in case there is a 2-R bonus) >>> >>>R + B + P v Q >>> >>>with my amendment gives >>> >>>16 + 10 + 3 v 29 >>> >>>i.e. 29 v 29 >>> >>>i.e. fits in with my OTB observation that R+B+P v Q often holds... >> >>Early enough on, I think I will take the queen, every time. [commented on already - "early enough on" relates to a game subset, the average is what this is about] >I probably would too. But I don't think I'd ever give away two rooks and >a pawn for a queen [...] >That's a lot. Too much, IMHO. Seriously too much. Surely. But while here, 2*R vs Q [Larry's] gives 30 vs 29 i.e. sac the queen provided you lose less than 1/3 pawn positional. And my upping Rook to 16 makes it "worse". 2*R vs Q+P 32 vs 32 OTB, I regard this as being pretty correct. I'm sort of standing by my R=16 amendment. So... horses for courses? Or is it Rooks for books? ;-) Kind regards fca
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.