In general yes... every piece is very important and shouldn't merely be given away. A pawn is a very perculier piece. A famous chess-giant (Capablanca?) said that "pawns are the fabric of chess". Of course, no piece really has a set intrinsic value, independent of position. In one position, a pawn my be nearly worthless and in others more than a queen.
Originally posted by Mad RookThat was fun to watch. You wouldn't think it would take 71 moves (85 minus the first 14) to beat a pawnless opponent.
Rybka starts playing against itself in demo mode on move 15:
[pgn]
[Event "Computer chess game"]
[Date "2009.04.27"]
[White "Rybka 2.2 32 bit"]
[Black "Rybka 2.2 32 bit"]
[TimeControl "40/240:40/240:40/240"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "170"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]
1. h4 Nf6 2. h5 Nxh5 3. g3 Nxg3 4. e4 Nxe4 5. c3 Nxf ...[text shortened]...
81. Rg8+ Kf7 82. Rg2 Rh1+ 83. Kg4 Qe4+ 84. Kh5 Qxg2 85. Kh6 Qg6# 0-1
[/pgn]
well, basically, losing a pawn without compensation means losing the game. although it's entirely different question whether the winning actually has the technique to get the point.
and with compensation all anecdotal general guidelines are of course largely worthless, as it depends entirely on the position.
Originally posted by KneeCapsRybka may have been a little unlucky in that game to take so many moves to win. I played a second game and Rybka only took 42 moves after move 14.
That was fun to watch. You wouldn't think it would take 71 moves (85 minus the first 14) to beat a pawnless opponent.
But what I found very odd was Rybka's evaluation on move 15. Instead of the evaluation being around -8 like you'd expect, Rybka's evaluation was around -5.3.
Originally posted by Mad RookWhite isn't lacking open lines and diagonals,maybe Rybka thinks those are worth something?
Rybka may have been a little unlucky in that game to take so many moves to win. I played a second game and Rybka only took 42 moves after move 14.
But what I found very odd was Rybka's evaluation on move 15. Instead of the evaluation being around -8 like you'd expect, Rybka's evaluation was around -5.3.
Just guessing and partly joking 😀
You're actually completely correct... mobility of pieces are something highly evaluated in many chess engines. Until I added it to mine, Vicki was very happy with blocked in bishops and an utterly cramped position.
In this case, the bishops, queens and the rooks have "free" reign and to Rybka that is definitely worth a point or two.
Originally posted by MilkyJoeWell, the first game you posted wasn't just a few pawns. It was a rook and three pawns.
After losing a few pawns, the opponents resigned. I wouldn't have just because a few pawns.
Second game - No idea why he resigned. Maybe the three pawns, but maybe other reasons. Who knows? Three pawns is roughly the same as a minor piece. Many people will resign after losing a minor piece. (Not me, though... unless I'm playing someone much stronger.)
Originally posted by MilkyJoeI'd agree with that. You should only resign when you feel the position is hopeless. This depends on more factors than just material. The pawns don't win the game unless the opponent has the skill to make use of them in the endgame.
After losing a few pawns, the opponents resigned. I wouldn't have just because a few pawns.
Are pawns really that important?
Generally:
The d & e-pawns are important in the opening/middle game.
All pawns are important in the ending.
Lasker and Nimzovitch both warn against pawn stealing for the
sake of development but add if it's a d or e-pawn that is in the kitty.
Well consider it, because these are "worth a bit of trouble."
I think that the is the term that Lasker used.