Author: James Robertson
Date: 23:14:40 08/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 1999 at 02:01:41, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 Yeah... he went for attack with ... f5 instead of sane development. James
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.