Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 20:46:55 06/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 1999 at 19:06:29, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 17, 1999 at 18:26:40, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On June 17, 1999 at 14:42:44, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On June 17, 1999 at 13:32:19, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>Imagine: >>>> >>>>White Ra1, Pa4, Pb4, Pc3 >>>>Black Ra8, Pa6, Pb5, Pc6 >>>> >>>>The a6 pawn should be evaluated as either isolated or backward (depending on who >>>>is to move), assuming other pieces do not interact with this configuration. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>r.. >>>... >>>p.p >>>.p. >>>PP. >>>..P >>>... >>>R.. >>> >>>The a6 pawn cannot be considered isolated unless black plays ba (which is not >>>forced). >>> >>>The reason that it appears that the a6 pawn is backwards is due to the white >>>rook having control of the a5 square indirectly (since white can play ab at any >>>time). If black had another rook protecting his a8 rook, then the a6 pawn would >>>not be considered backwards due to the a6 pawn not being pinned (i.e. the a6 >>>pawn could be pushed without the penalty of losing a pawn). >>> >>>I think that examples like this are excellent since they illustrate that some >>>concepts are MUCH more complex than is readily apparent (and hence the need for >>>a search engine). >>> >>>KarinsDad :) >> >>What I said wasn't exactly what I meant, but the main point is yeah, there's a >>lot more going on than the obvious stuff. More specifically regarding >>backwardness, if it is Black's move, and allowing White to play ab would be bad, > >Why? 1. ab cb, what is white's follow up? If 2. c4 bc 3. Ra5 (3. b5 a5) c3, 4. >Rc5 Rb8 and black has won a pawn and has 2 pawns to white's 1. ab is only good >for white if black pushes a5, so black's a pawn is definitely backwards. Again, I was speaking generally. That's why I used "if". I was not trying to analyze the partial position. Dave
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.