Author: martin fierz
Date: 08:53:03 03/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2004 at 11:49:15, Richard Pijl wrote: >On March 23, 2004 at 09:11:14, martin fierz wrote: > >>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... > >The Baron doesn't see a big difference in static eval, the value is even >slightly worse for the bishop on c1. But after a short search it makes quite a >difference. >Current Development version > >Original position static: -0.77 >After short (10 ply search): -1.5 > >Bishop on c1 static: -0.87 >After short (10 ply search): -0.9 > >The difference in score is purely because of mobility of the bishop (and rook, >when looking at the static eval). > >Richard. as expected :-) (my engine of course behaves exactly the same and even gives the Bc1 position a lower score...). tord, are you feeling better now? 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.