Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 08:09:49 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2003 at 10:30:15, Sune Fischer wrote:
>On January 01, 2003 at 08:48:39, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>> r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/1PB1P3/5N2/P1PP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq b3 0 4
>>
>>The Evans Gambit, arising after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4, is a good
>>example of positional material sacrifice. By sacrificing his b pawn, white gains
>>a number if precious tempos, thus seizing the opening initiative. While the 4.b4
>>gambit might not be better than the other 4th moves here, it usually reaches a
>>balanced position in which white has enough compensation for the sacrificed
>>pawn.
>
>So your saying that _usually_ white gets _enough compensation_, so the position
>should ideally be evaluated at 0.00?
>
>To put it in a different way, how often is this played by the top players, is it
>sound, or is it a patzer gambit?
>
This gambit is perfectly sound, being played by many top players (including
Kasparov) from time to time.
Some statistics from the database I use at the moment:
N %
4.c3 1073 57
4.d3 347 50
4.O-O 216 53
4.Nc3 163 51
4.b4 156 55
I wouldn't call a 55% scoring opening a "patzer gambit"!
More information:
http://www.chesscorner.com/tutorial/openings/evans/evans_gambit.htm
P.S. I have also used the Evans Gambit in tournaments from time to time, with
good results.
>Actually, I would be a bit worried if my program showed 0.00 or advantage for
>white :)
>
>My guesstimate would be 0.30-0.50 advantage for black is the "correct"
>evaluation, ie there _is_ compensation for the pawn, but it is doubtfull if
>there is _enough_.
>
>-S.
>>Now let us see how the top engines evaluate this position. There is not much
>>tactics involved here, so this gives us a good opportunity to compare the
>>programs' evaluation (their chess knowledge).
>>
>>In the table below, the evaluation of each engine is recorded after 1 minute
>>analysis (since the evaluation is largely positional, no significant score
>>change was noticed from one ply to another, so most probably even deeper
>>searches will not change the result):
>>
>>
>>Engine Score
>>------ -----
>>Junior 7 0.06
>>Fritz 7 -0.41
>>Shredder 6.02 -0.33
>>Chess Tiger 14 -0.82 (Gambit Tiger 2 also produced the same score)
>>Hiarcs 8 -0.84
>>Crafty 19.1 -0.81
>>
>>
>>Interesting points:
>>
>> - Junior 7 was the only program who evaluated the position realistically.
>>
>> - Gambit Tiger 2 which is tuned for sacrificial play, did not evaluate
>> the position differently from Chess Tiger 14.
>>
>> - Hiarcs 8 which is said to incorporate the most chess knowledge, displays
>> the least chess understanding in this position! (Conclusion: more chess
>> knowledge does not necessarily mean better evaluation.)
>>
>>Omid.
>>
>>P.S. An analysis of Fritz 8 and Shredder 7 will be appreciated.
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.