Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:08:50 01/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2003 at 11:09:49, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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. whether or not the gambit is sound does not depend on who plays it! topalov once played the cochrane gambit in a top level game and even drew IIRC (1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nxf7?!). > >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"! ...and as pointed out at another place, these numbers mean very little. i never include games by patzers like you and me when i do database searches, only both players 2400+, as all other games usually have little correlation between result and opening success. besides, if one day a refutation of the evans gambit were to be found and one single game played with it, and then published everywhere, the statistics would stay the same, but the gambit would be refuted. just pointing out something, not that i disagree completely with you. although i wouldn't really call it "sound". kasparov played it a couple of times, and of course others tried after him, but i think it isn't played at the top very often any more nowadays. finally, i think the compensation in this position is of a long-range nature, and you cannot really expect programs to display a positive eval for white. i'm not sure if that is really such a good sign when a program thinks white is better here! cheers martin >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.