Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 12:17:02 12/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2002 at 14:00:22, Bas Hamstra wrote: >- - - - - - - - >- - - B - - - - >- - - W - - - - >- - - - - - - - >- - - - - - - - >- - - - - - - - >- - - - W - - - >- - - - - - - - Saying that the white pawn (either) is weak is like two men having a duel, and one man shoots the other, and the man that got shot feeling that it was a draw because both men are going to die, even though his opponent may not die for many years. The white pawn may, by definition, be "backward" or "theoretically weak", but, all other things being equal, black will lose its pawn long before black could exploit the white weak pawn. It's all relative really. If all other things are equal, then white has an advantage. If black can capture the white pawn on d6 on the next move, then it's most likely a draw. Instead of thinking, "is this pawn weak?", think, "is this pawn weak relative to my opponents'?" The one pawn may be weak, but in comparisson to the opposition's pawn structure, it may be a great advantage. This is just more of the danger (or lack of perfection) in detecting this stuff statically. The evaluation might say, "both sides have a weak pawn, even score" when that is not the case. Black's pawn is weaker than white's. It is planted there forever, further restricting black's pieces. Barring any immediate captures of white's advanced pawn, white will eventually be able to trade off pawns and obtain a passer. Black may be able to draw, depending on the other circumstances. The point is, again, that you will probably always be able to find specific positions that your current method doesn't handle correctly. Look for the general solution, then try to generalize it more. Detecting dynamics statically is a difficult thing to do :)
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.