Author: martin fierz
Date: 02:54:56 08/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2003 at 05:14:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 08, 2003 at 04:16:34, martin fierz wrote: ><snipped> >>uri's argument of 3+3*1 < 9 is far too simplistic, in endgames against a lone >>queen the question is whether you can construct a fortress like > >fortress are the exception and in most practical cases the queen is stronger. of course >If you want to add knowledge about exceptions you can do it but without special >knowledge it is better to tell a program that the queen is stronger because in >the opposite case it is going to blunder more often. > >Uri of course again. i just added these fortress positions as some other examples where 9-6 is not a win. the main point (which i probably didn't make clear enough...) was about the Q-N+3P position: your comment on that position was: "A queen equal more than knight and 3 pawns and bonus for passed pawns is not enough compensation" which i find a very simplistic evaluation of that position. that's why i included the other position which is practically unchanged with the pawn on f4 instead of f6, and already black has enough compensation. it's just not at all obvious that either of the two positions is drawn or lost, certainly it's not a question of 6<9 - it's a question of how much compensation exactly these passed pawns give black, which is VERY hard to see! cheers martin
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.