Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:19:28 11/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 30, 1999 at 19:49:44, Alexander Kure wrote: >On November 30, 1999 at 17:45:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 30, 1999 at 04:40:20, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On November 30, 1999 at 04:12:22, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>> >>>>On November 30, 1999 at 03:35:54, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>As said we must have a different view on king safety even on the basics as >>>>>this case for me is so crystal clear: QRRB all pointed at a naked king, the >>>>>king having hardly any escapes, >>>> >>>>True, but all it takes to wreck the whole thing is ONE escape for the black >>>>king, as long as black doesn't lose material doing it. In this case, I don't >>>>think there is an escape, but it will happen in other positions. >>> >>>And SEARCH will filter that. >>> >>>Ed >> >>not at 1-2-3 plies it won't. If you don't see the escape, you make the >>sac. If I don't see the win, I don't make it. That is a subtle difference. >>You want the search to refute the positional sac. I want the search to justify >>the sac... > > >You cannot justify anything with a 1-2-3 ply search. But after 5-7 plies it >should be clear that Bxh6 is winning, providing your king safety/attack is well >implemented: > >2-3 pawns + dead opponent's king > bishop, but if "dead opponent's king" -> 0 in >your evaluation this inequality busts. > >Nimzo 7.32 for example has a very limited concept of king safety and does not >find Bxh6 after 10 plies! > >Greetings >Alex You are missing the point. Rebel liked things after Bxh6 gxh6 Qxh6. What happens if it gives up a pawn at ply-1, so that it can force this position at ply=10? Now it can't search beyond the above sequence, and it chooses to enter this based on that 1 ply search. And by the time you discover that it doesn't work, you are already 'in for a pawn..." what to do then???
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.