Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 06:28:46 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 07:26:09, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 16, 2004 at 06:02:22, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>After Rxe6 Qxe6 Re1 Qf5 Qxf5 gxf5 this is the position that should justify the >>sac: >> >>[D] 2r1r3/p3bk1p/1pn2p1B/3n1p2/3P4/PB3N2/1P3PPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 4 >> >>White has sacced the exchange but wins a knight back, plus white has an extra >>pawn for it, being a freepawn, plus it has the bishoppair, plus better >>pawnstructure. >> >>Anyway, Tao evaluates this as +1.00 for white or so. And it will not *ever* play >>that sac because it evaluates the original position as slightly better, giving >>about 1.30 or so for attacking chances in the original position. >> >>I don't think there is a big crush, just a good endgame, that's all. Other >>opinions? > >Yes > >I think that the +1.30 for the original position is too optimistic. > >The endgame also is evaluated by movei as more than +1 >White has a pair of bishops in the position that you posted and black has >weaker pawn structure. >White has a passed pawn that gives another bonus for white and white has also >better mobility . > >Movei cannot find Rxe6 in a reasonable time but the problem is that the tactics >is simply too deep for it to see it at tournament time control and it has not >big king safety evaluation to see it by evaluation like another program that >give positive score for white inspite of the fact that black has a rook for 2 >pawns. > >Uri I think big king-safety penalties are not going to help here, on the contrary. They can easily make the engine evaluate the original position as too optimistic, like you said, and *not* choose a promising endgame. Bas.
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.