Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 14:17:11 12/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 2002 at 12:46:54, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 08, 2002 at 12:03:00, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 08, 2002 at 11:46:33, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >><snipped> >>>I am sorry, but since you have excelled in chess in the past, I naturally >>>assumed you knew the differences between these things. >>> >>>How could someone create a good chess engine otherwise? >> >>You do not need to be a good player to create a good engine and you do not need >>to understand the meaning of these terms in order to be a good player. >> >>I read about these terms but they are not clear. >> >>I see initiative as the possibility to improve my position in every move but >>improving my position mean that I get advantages when I search deeper so I do >>not understand how can you have only initiative advantage when other things are >>equal including space and developement. >> >>space advantage may mean that your pieces has better mobility than the opponent >> >>developement advantage means that one side developed the pieces more than the >>opponents but again it comes together with better mobility. >> >>This is the reason that I do not understand what you mean by positions with only >>one of these advantages. >> >>Maybe my understanding of the terms is wrong(I do not remember reading a >>definition of what is meant by them). >> >>Uri > >Yes, you make good points. I will use them in my search through the chess >literature for suitable positions. > >I, too, am not sure that it is possible to find a position with one and only one >of the listed advantages but not having any of the others. Chess is a complex >game! > >The best I can do, maybe, will be to find positions offered by the GMs as being >illustrative of the different types of advantages. At my relatively low level >of chess expertise, I do not believe that I will be smart enough to *guarantee* >that the selected positions are "pure." > >But let's see what I come up with. The positions may be interesting even if not >perfect. Maybe others can be on the lookout for such positions too. I will >begin my search this evening. It may take a few days. > >Bob D. After taking a few hours to scan through my large chess library, I must report with some distress that all the books dealing with space advantage actually present games in which space considerations played only an important part. But nowhere have I seen games in which space advantage occurred in isolation. All of the games are complex mixtures of multiple factors. I am beginning to wonder whether or not it is possible, or even worthwhile, to try to find a position in which space advantage is the sole or dominant consideration. Maybe the various types of advantages and disadvantages always occur in combination. Also, the games I've found contain many transitions from one type of advantage to another during the game. Conversion of advantages seems to be almost "the name of the game" in chess. Incidentally, the positions I've found, in which space considerations are important, are found in openings, middlegame, and endgame. Still looking. : ( Bob D.
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.