Author: Tim Foden
Date: 06:54:55 02/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2004 at 08:08:46, Joachim Rang wrote: >On February 22, 2004 at 04:56:31, Tim Foden wrote: > >>GLC and LG 2000v3 played a match last night. One of the games that I watched >>acheived this position: >> >>[D]r5k1/1p2qpp1/1p2b1n1/1Pp1p2p/r1PpP2P/P2QPPP1/1BR3B1/3R2K1 w - - 4 27 >> >>GLC statically evaluates this position as +0.591 (for white). I believe this is >>badly wrong. To me (a patzer) black looks to have all the advantages... GLC >>went on to lose this game. >> >>Blacks rook on a4 is simultaneously attacking 2 weak pawns. >>Black has more space in the centre. >>Blacks bishop is better placed, and is not "bad", and is also attacking a weak >>pawn. >>Blacks king safety looks OK. >> >>White has a rook and queen pinned down to defending a weak pawn. >>Whites queen is doing work blockading a pawn. >>There is space around the white king. >>2 of the white kings pawns are weak. >>The potential for attacking the white king is high (3 potential attacking >>pieces). >>Whites light square bishop looks quite "bad" >> >>In general blacks piece mobility looks much better than whites. >> >>I belive this should be evaluated as at least 1/2 pawn in favour of black, maybe >>more. What do other progs evaluations say? >> >>Cheers, Tim. > > >maybe GLC overevluated the bishop pair of white here. In such closed position >with many pawns the bishop pair is not worth much. > >regards Joachim Thanks for the comment Joachim. However, I wasn't really asking what was wrong with GLC, so much as what is important in the position, so I can correct GLC :) Unfortunately GLC doesn't have terms for many of the features that I described above, and I hoped that someone would talk about the position in terms of features that they think are important here. Cheers, Tim.
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.