Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:18:05 05/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2003 at 17:51:09, Richard Pijl wrote: >On May 05, 2003 at 16:52:59, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On May 05, 2003 at 16:44:38, Richard Pijl wrote: >> >>>>[D]8/1p1k4/4p2p/1PP2pp1/2KP4/7P/6P1/8 w - - 0 1 >>>> >>>>This is a draw (I hope ;) ). >>>>Peter >>> >>>The Baron doesn't seem to agree on that: >>> >>> 14(45). 1856 509122289 298 d4d5 e6d5 c4d5 d7c7 d5e6 f5f4 e6f5 c7d7 f5g6 >>>h6h5 g6g5 d7e8 g5h5 e8f7 c5c6 f4f3 c6b7 >> >>No doubt. Fritz even has +5 after more than an hour of search - as I explained, >>computers don't understand this motive. But I am pretty sure I am right :) >> >>It's much easier to understand for a human. >> >>A sample line: >> >>1. d5 e5! 2. b6 e4 3. Kd5 h5 4. g4 fxg4 5. fxg4 h4 and the draw is quite >>obvious. >> >>Peter > >You're right Peter. > >After forcing 1..e5 Baron's score jumped to +5 as well, but when looking at the >line that came with it, it is a simple draw. > >Richard. I do not understand the high positional score of Fritz and Baron. White is only one pawn up after d5 e5 and there are no unstoppable passed pawns. I could understand positional score of a pawn or 2 for white to get total score of 2-3 pawns(white has pawns that are more advanced and it is more easy to win with advantage in a pawn endgame) but not positional score of 4 pawns. Uri
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.