Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Static evaluation after the "Positional/Real Sacrifice"

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 10:29:10 12/03/99

Go up one level in this thread

On December 03, 1999 at 11:17:30, Andrew Williams wrote:

>On December 03, 1999 at 09:13:48, Dusan Dobes wrote:
>>On December 03, 1999 at 08:49:19, Andrew Williams wrote:
>>>Over the last few days, I have been fascinated by the discussions on CCC
>>>about positional sacrifices. Some of the discussion has centred on the value
>>>assigned to the attack that is obtained after the sacrifice and I was wondering
>>>how other programs evaluated the position after Hossa's sac:
>>>r3q1k1/ppp1rp2/2n1b2Q/8/2P5/3B4/PPP2RPP/5RK1 b - - 0 2
>>>This is after 1. Bxh6 gxh6 2. Qxh6 from the original position posted by
>>>Peter McKenzie. PostModernist's static evaluation of the position is presented
>>>below. Essentially, it thinks that White is winning by 0.71. The ATTACKTOTAL
>>>score is generated by analyzing the squares around the King to see how many of
>>>them are attacked and what sorts of pieces are attacking them. Please note that
>>>not all the factors that contribute to PM's score are included in the output
>>>Could other programmers post similar information? I believe that even an
>>>overall static evaluation would be interesting.
>>>Andrew Williams
>>Phalanx XXI static evaluation scores this position as +3.05 for white.
>>Material gives -1.5, black king safety +5.76.
>>Dusan Dobes
>That seems extraordinarily high. Might this not cause Phalanx to sac a
>whole Rook to reach this position?
>Thanks for your response.

in this position it's ok to do so. get a position where it is NOT good
to sac and let's compare then at what depths programs stop sacraficing
at h6.

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.