Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:17:34 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 13:19:09, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On October 17, 2002 at 04:51:28, Christophe Drieu wrote: > >>[D] 8/4k3/4p3/pp5p/6p1/2P2rP1/PPK2R1P/8 w - - 0 1 >> >>Rxf3 ! > >I think, this is not easy at all for engines. Sure - some code that takes into >account that far away passed pawns (or candidates) can't be stopped by a K while >some connected passed pawns can, would help here. But, is such code correct? >Can't it also lead the engine into some trap, and make it thereby less objective >(for example for long analysis)? > >If I look at the position after 1. Rxf3 gxf3 2. Kd3 e5 > >Now a5, h3 or Ke3 win. But b3 (with the obvious idea to create the passer on >Q-side, and later one on K-side) only seems to draw. I fear, it is almost >impossible without any concrete (and in this case probably rather deep) >calculation, for an engine, to give the position after b3 a drawing score, and >the position after h3 a winning score (for white). Wouldn't many intermediate >strength chess player move b3 here? absolutely. on general grounds, b3 is also a very obvious move. this position is clearly about calculation and not only about knowledge. i think any program that evaluates this pawn endgame as totally winning in it's evaluation function will fail in similar cases where black is just fast enough with his counterplay. a reason some engines may have trouble with this is that they cannot reach a good enough search depth for the pawn endgame to see it's winning from the starting position, because they also have to search the rook endgame. aloha martin
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.