Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Positional/Real Sacrifice

Author: Peter Kappler

Date: 23:00:34 11/30/99

Go up one level in this thread


On November 30, 1999 at 20:48:39, Ricardo Gibert wrote:

>On November 30, 1999 at 17:43:50, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On November 30, 1999 at 03:35:54, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>>Posted by Robert Hyatt on November 29, 1999 at 20:17:47:
>>>
>>>[ snip ]
>>>
>>>r3q1k1/ppp1rpp1/2n1b2p/8/2P2B2/3B4/PPPQ1RPP/5RK1 w - - bm Bxh6;
>>>
>>>>>>>00:00:00  1.00  1.02   1.Bxh6 gxh6 2.Qxh6
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This looks _incredibly_ dangerous.  For every position where Bxh6 works,
>>>>>>there are 10 positions where Bxh6 loses.  Here a piece for two pawns looks
>>>>>>awful if the other pieces can't get over to help out...  Speculative play is
>>>>>>nice, as in the old days of the Novag gadgets from Kittinger, and in the
>>>>>>current
>>>>>>play of CSTal...  but it can backfire big-time as well...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Crafty doesn't like the sac, unless it sees actual material coming back,
>>>>>>because
>>>>>>I have spent a lot of time teaching it which types of material imbalance are
>>>>>>bad and which types are good.  A piece for 2 pawns is always bad unless
>>>>there
>>>>>>is some tactical conclusion at the end.  And given the above PV there
>>>>>>obviously
>>>>>>isn't anything except a somewhat naked king position for black...
>>>>>
>>>>>I can not believe you saying this. After 1.Bxh6 gxh6 2.Qxh6 there is a queen,
>>>>>2 rooks and a bishop all pointed very dangerous at a naked king. Rebel giving
>>>>>+1 is fully justified.
>>>>>
>>>>>Every 1800 rated chess player will play 1.Bxh6 immediately, no need to
>>>>>calculate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but _I_ am an 1800+ player and _I_ wouldn't play it immediately.
>>>>Because black can play f5, and it doesn't look nearly so clear after that.  The king
>>>>has a way out...  the black rook now can interpose on the g/h files.  The
>>>>f file is no longer useful unless white does something else...
>>>
>>>1.Bxh6 gxh6 2.Qxh6 f5 3.Bxf5 the black king is even more naked. I guess
>>>we have a different view on king safety.
>>
>>
>>
>>I probably have as big (or bigger) king safety scores as you.  However, I
>>have a big penalty for trading a piece for 2-3 pawns, as it almost always
>>loses unless tactics make it work...
>>
>>>
>>>>It may be good.  It may not work.  But as a human, I don't play Bxh6 here
>>>>without calculating something worthwhile at the end of the sequence.  I let
>>>>an IM look at this for several minutes...  he left unclear whether it was
>>>>good or not...
>>>
>>>Who was the IM?
>>>
>>>After 1.Bxh6 gxh6 2.Qxh6 f5 3.Bxf5 I am pretty sure all programs soon will
>>>display a +2 or +3 score.
>>
>>
>>Note that I didn't say it doesn't work.  I said that at the shallow depth
>>of 1-2-3-4 plies, it looks _very_ dangerous to do this..  because black has
>>some defensive resources that don't look obviously bad until you search
>>deeper.
>
>I think the culprit is crafty does not understand the role the passive rook on
>a8 has in assessing the position. The value of a passive major piece in such a
>sharp position plummets precipitously. After 3.Bxf5, any evaluation less than
>half a pawn in favor of white should be considered a bug. Naturally, the actual
>evaluation for white is much greater, but I assume here that the program does
>not "see" the win.
>
>You have said that crafty generally does not play such sacrifices, unless it
>"sees" a win, calling programs that do otherwise "speculative". But isn't crafty
>guilty of doing the reverse? It is speculating that the sac is unsound despite
>positional evidence to the contrary. Crafty trades one form of speculation for
>another at the cost of being boring.
>

Ricardo, I agree with your assessment completely, especially the comment about
the rook on a8.  Black is effectively playing without that piece for the
duration of this attack, which proves fatal.

I think it's fantastic that Rebel evaluates the position as +1 after a 1-ply
search.

If only we could agree in our other discussions...  :-)

--Peter




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.