Author: martin fierz
Date: 06:11:14 03/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2004 at 04:35:49, Tord Romstad wrote: >[D]k1r5/p5n1/1prp3p/5p2/P1PPp1pP/2P1P1P1/3KBP2/1R4B1 w - - > >This position occured in a blitz game on the ICC with Gothmog (white) against >Arasan. Of course, as is immediately obvious to a human observer, white is >dead lost. It's impossible to activate the bishop on g1, and white is >effectively a rook down. > >To my disgust, Gothmog was quite happy about its position, and showed a small >plus score. And because Arasan appeared to be equally clueless about the >position, Gothmog even went on to win after a really ugly endgame. > >After the game, I decided to check Gothmog's static eval for the position. >It thinks that white has an advantage(!) of 0.24 pawns. Of course it >notices the bad mobility for the bishop on g1, but it doesn't understand >that it will never be possible to activate the bishop without loss of >material. > >How do other engines evaluate this position? IMO this question is not the right question to ask. i think gothmog is rather good at giving up the exchange compared to other programs. it's static eval for this position would be quite ok if the white bishop was on c1 for example, where it's mobility is apparantly only very little bigger (one more square to go to). therefore you have to ask not only what the static eval for the position is that you gave, but also for the one with the bishop on c1. many engines will give black a clear edge here because they are (too) materialistic. they will do this in both positions. the really interesting question is whether any engine can detect the HUGE difference between having the bishop on c1 or g1... cheers martin
This page took 0.01 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.