Author: Christopher A. Morgan
Date: 09:04:52 01/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
In the above post I should have said for players with ratings with average ELO..., NOT “in rated games.” On January 01, 2003 at 11:58:56, Christopher A. Morgan wrote: > > >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.