Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:30:38 08/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 1999 at 14:40:31, KarinsDad wrote: >On August 04, 1999 at 14:09:18, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On August 04, 1999 at 12:16:52, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>As a 'for instance': >>> >>>Suppose that on promotion, a program sees that it can promote to a knight >>>instead of a queen, and get a king fork, taking a bishop, followed by a queen >>>fork, taking the other bishop. In such a case, it might evaluate: >>> -pawn+knight+bishop+bishop+two_bishop_bonus+(minor positional goo) >>>verses >>> -pawn+queen >>>and get something a fraction more valuable than a queen. But down the road I >>>would rather have the queen than a knight and remove the two bishops. >>> >>>How do programs deal with this? >> >>You are really saying you'd rather have a queen against two bishops than be a >>knight up, right? >> >>bruce > >Actually, assuming an equal game, it is a preference of being up a queen for a >pawn as opposed to being up a knight and two bishops for a pawn. > >Of course, decisions like these are always based off of the actual position, but >here is a comment Kasparov made just the other day on Ponomariov - Al Modiakhi >in round 1 of the championship: > >"Looking at Ponomariov's 7.Be3 with 8.Bb6 I have sensed chess of the very >distant future. With my limited knowledge of the game I would consider 3 minor >pieces in such position much better than Queen+pawn". > >So, there are obviously positions where having 3 minors is better than having >the queen. > >KarinsDad :) I think that in almost _all_ cases, three minors pieces are better than a single queen.. and most games I have seen where this happens are wins for the three minors. I don't like two minors and 3 pawns vs a queen however, unless maybe if the pawns are all on the 6th rank or farther along. :)
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.