Author: Christopher A. Morgan
Date: 08:58:56 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
Some actual play results for the position: In my 1.9 million game database I found 1,821 games with this position. Results, decided games: 870 games 1-0 622 games 0-1 In rated games with average ELO 2500 or more, 12 games 1-0 12 games 0-1 In rated games with average ELO 2400 or more, 40 games 1-0 28 games 0-1 A couple of examples: Kasparov played three games as white only, beating Anand and Picket, and drawing with Short in a rapid game. Short played six games, five as white, with score of 1-1 in decided games. 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? > >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.