Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 06:43:29 03/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 2003 at 09:31:05, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On March 19, 2003 at 07:11:50, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On March 18, 2003 at 15:47:53, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>This is a very difficult position for most chess programs. >>> >>>[D]8/8/6k1/2p1p3/2P1P1K1/3N4/8/b7 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>This position was given by Pachman in the third volume of his "Complete >>>Chess Strategy" trilogy to illustrate a position where a computer >>>would have great difficulty finding the right idea. In fairness, >>>it might be added that most humans would fail this particular test; >>>indeed in the game Pachman grabbed the pawn. 1.Kxc5? >>> >>>This obvious, materialistic move throws away the win' "White's >>>c-pawn cannot be advanced to the queening square without the help of >>>the king, but this allows Black to counter by attacking the e-pawn"- >>>Pachman. >>> >>> >>>Supposing it were instead Black to move, the following variation is >>>enlightening: >>> >>>1... Bd4 2. Ne1 Bf2 3. Nf3 Kf6 or 3...Bd4 4. Kh4+ Kf6 5. Kf5 >>>4. Kh5 Bg3 5. Nh4 Bf2 6. Nf5 Bg1 7. Nh6 Bd4 8. Ng4+ Ke6 9. Kg6 >>> >>>[D]8/8/4k1K1/2p1p3/2PbP1N1/8/8/8 b - - 0 9 >>> >>>White will now play Kf6-h7-g5+, etc and win easily. However, >> >> >>Did Pachman say, "White will now play Nf6-h7-g5+, etc and win easily" or is this >>what you say? If this is what Pachman said, then it is clear he did not fully >>understand the position, because I'm a NM who can't find the win. > >Pachman didn't say anything at all, it was IM Graham Burgess who said that >Pachman missed an opportunity to win, since Pachman himself grabbed the c pawn >and the game ended in a draw. But IM Burgess on his book stated that this would >be a great position for programs since they are too materialists and eventually >will grab the pawn like Pachman did back in 1944. It was IM Burgess who stated >"White will now play Nf6-h7-g5+, etc and win easily" so I tested most of my >programs and noticed that all grabbed the c pawn just like Pachman did. > >Pichard > >>It seems Black gets just enough counterplay by making an appropriately timed run >>around to attack the pawns from the rear via a5 with his King. It is very >>possible that Pachman assumed this type of defence was not possible. >> >>The endgame ability of even GMs is often greatly exagerated in the minds of most >>players. This is largely due to the examination of games from the days where >>players benefitted greatly from adjournment analysis. >> >>If you can dig up evidence the position can be won following Pachman's >>prescription, I would be very interested in seeing it. It would surely be quite >>instructive. >> >> >>>if there were no black pawn on c5, then Black would have sufficient >>>counterplay to hold the draw, since his King could use the c5-square >>>to attack White's pawns. >>> >>>Thus in our start position, White should NOT take the c-pawn, but >>>instead make progress on the kingside by manoeuvering his knight. >>> >>>[D]8/8/6k1/2p1p3/2P1P1K1/3N4/8/b7 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>Pichard.
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.