Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 21:14:24 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2006 at 23:54:40, John Merlino wrote: >On January 02, 2006 at 23:20:45, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: > >>Andrew Martin recommends the following line in the "scheming scandanavian" video >>(see below). However, Rybka think's its pretty bad for black (+.8, depth = 17)? >> >>Is Rybka's assessment off somehow? Or, have we now reached a point where rybka >>can challenge opening theory? (one final option. Is a .8 disadvantage really >>acceptable for black?) >> >>To quote andrew martin "Black's mobile central pawn mass, backed up by rooks, >>should see him through all kinds of difficulties." >> >>1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 c6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bd2 e6 8. >>Ne4 Qc7 9. Nxf6+ gxf6 10. Qe2 Nd7 11. O-O-O O-O-O 12. Nh4 Bg6 13. Bb3 c5 14. >>d5 Nb6 15. Nxg6 hxg6 16. Ba5 e5 17. c4 Bd6 18. h4 f5 * > >CM9_R1 agrees with Rybka, except even more so. The King suggests 19.h5, with an >eval a little higher than +1 for White. > >jm It depends on the stage or the phase of the game, an static evaluation by a computer engine of less than +1.0 in an opening stage is less reliable when it gives an evaluation less than +1.0 in the endgame stage. Thus, an evaluation of less than 1.0 is not quite a severe disadvantage in the opinion of chess praxis because there some dynamic compensation for Black. Dynamic compensations are not static values. Its value can change completely as the position unfolds more and more to a static position. Hence, an static evaluation of 1.0 is a great advantage when the position is void of dynamics or the position approaches to a more static phase of the game, for example, the transition to an endgame. Even in an endgame an advantage of +1.0 for either side is not very much if it is a rook ending, compared to a minor ending, Knight vs. Bishop, the +1.0 advantage can be enough advantage to convert to a bigger advantage. My recommendation is to stop evaluating the position from a STATIC point of view, but start to evaluate the position more from a DYNAMIC point of view, this is what IM Andrew Martin is reccommending. My 2 cents, Laurence
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.