Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 09:07:14 12/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2002 at 23:32:14, Russell Reagan wrote: >On December 23, 2002 at 19:33:50, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>What is the >>definition of backward pawn, in fact? > >A backward pawn is just one type of weak pawn. A weak pawn is a pawn that cannot >be defended by other pawns, and thus requires pieces to guard it. Those pieces >in turn become less active and more restricted. > >I think it's a better idea to avoid thinking of "backward pawns" or "isolated >pawns" or "doubled pawns", but rather to focus on the weakness of the pawn >structure more generally (if you're wanting a "perfect" method). For example, it >would probably be better to have a function that detected whether or not a pawn >was weak (unable to be defended by fellow pawns), rather than detect doubled >pawns and tack on a penalty, because doubled pawns, just like isolated and >backward pawns, are not always weak. > >I suppose since it is possible for an isolated pawn to not be weak, that a >better "weak" pawn definition is "a pawn that requires the support of pieces." >As with most things in chess, detecting this statically is not going to be >perfect. I agree, but even this is not trivial. Because I would like to know certainly more than if a pawn needs pieces to defend it. Most importantly: will it need pieces to defend it practically forever. And so you need to know: - is the pawn pawn-defendable where it is - can it advance to a place where it is pawndefended. To do so, there must me no blocking pawn or opposing pawn domination in the way. Not easy, but I am working on it. - - - - - - - - B - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The white b-pawn cannot ever become pawn-defended. I intend to treat it as weak. - - - - - - - - B - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - But now it could be, in principle, so not weak. - - - - - - - - B - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - B - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Weak again. As long as a pawn stays where it is, I can tell if it is pawn-defendable, now I want the others cases too. This would result in an element of look-ahead I hope. Best regards, Bas.
This page took 0.01 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.