Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 23:01:41 08/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 1999 at 01:00:32, James Robertson wrote: >On August 22, 1999 at 00:51:59, Tim OConnor wrote: > >>The following position is difficult for me to understand. >> >>r1b2rk1/1pbpnp1p/2n1p1p1/8/2B1P3/2P5/PP2QPPP/R4RK1 >> >>Hiarcs 7.32 gives it +0.88 after several minutes and recommends 16... f5. >> >>Kasparov says "With my limited knowledge of the game I would consider 3 >>minor pieces in such position much better than Queen+pawn and to the best >>of my understanding after 16...d5 (instead of 16...f5) White would have been >>reduced to fight for uneasy draw, but I guess Ponomariov used a computer >>to evaluate this position more precisely." >> >>When I play Hiarcs against itself from this position it did much better with >>white in long time controls but scored equally well with either color using a >>shorter amount of time. >> >>Does anyone have information as to whether other engines evaluate this >>position as favorable to white? > >My experience with my program's games against other programs is that the queen >will almost always win, even against two rooks. Therefore, my program loves its >queen and would rather play white any day. But I think in the long run, the >three minor pieces are better, especially if there are a lot of pawns and no >obvious pawn weaknesses. My experience playing both humans and computers is that >the minor pieces are better. > >James The problem was that while Al-Modihaki had three minor pieces, he had no development. Typically, the side with the three minors is able to seize the initiative, but in this case Ponomariov got all of the play. 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.