Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:14:06 11/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2003 at 08:57:43, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Fact is that not doing that black could be sure of losing the pawn, mobility and >everything. A knight for two pawns is materially the same and positionally much >better than a pawn for nothing and no chances at all. >Again my humble 2100 Elo opinion >Fernando We just have to disagree here. Given the choice of losing a pawn, or losing a knight and winning two pawns, I'll take losing the pawn every time. I've drawn (and even won) many games myself from a pawn down. But when you are a piece down, you had better be winning _then_ because that extra piece is going to allow your opponent to mop up your pawns, particularly when queens are still on the board. In a king and knight vs king and two pawns, the two pawns offer the only winning chances. In a king and knight and two pawns vs king and 4 pawns, the 4 pawns had better be on the move and mobile _now_. I've seen many programs do the very trade you suggest. Nowadays, most avoid it for the obvious reason that the trade generally leads to a loss. This might be a special case where it isn't true, but in general, I hate that particular trade. Even a knight for 3 pawns is generally bad.
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.