18 Dec '09 16:35>
Originally posted by Restless SoulIsn't a stalemate a loss for both sides? Or is it a draw?
The easiest answer is that there are no points in chess. Just a win, a lose, or a draw.
Originally posted by trev33if it's from the starting position the side with the pieces should have a decisive advantage, as rooks only come into play later. Besides, he'll also have the two bishops.
start of the game - do you do it?
if you go by points (which i usually do) 5 for the rook, 1 for the pawn and 3 each for the knight and bishop. equal. but is it?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree with this, I would take that work very seriously. That article is text-book material for computer chess history either. It's the basis for Rybka's evaluation (some parts of it at least, and in a very crude and simple way), and I bet for some others too. He later announced that he made slight changes on it, I don't remember if he publicized an updated version or not.
He did a very thorough statistical analysis. This impresses me. That's a way to find patterns you might miss other ways.
Originally posted by trev33The text doesn't say anything against that. It says such battery would be great, but usually there's not enough time to pile up your major pieces like that.
i stopped reading it after that, my best attacks come when there's two (sometimes 3) major pieces on an open file.
Originally posted by Bahariin the endgame, R+p can win, there's winning potential left.
If we are just talking about relative strength only, then exchange your two minor pieces for a rook + two pawns for break even. A rook and a pawn is hardly break even.
According to standard relative strength comparison between pieces, two minor pieces shall be equal to rook and a pawn. Why is that so? Let me try to reason. The strengths of two minor pi ...[text shortened]... Thus, the strength of the rook reduces since it has to play additional task to protect the pawn.
Originally posted by wormwoodThe basic principle is we have to make the exchange decision now. We are not completely sure about how the game will progress says 20 moves from now. There are billions of possible positions. If we know them then we can use the knowledge to come up with the best decision. In this case we may want to give up a queen for a pawn and still winning. Of course this scenario is not the scenario that demands relative strenght to be known since there is no element of uncertainty.
in the endgame, R+p can win, there's winning potential left.
with B+N, even winning against the lone king is nontrivial. give the defending king anything, let alone R+p, and it's quickly almost impossible to mate him.
the numerical value of pieces has little to do with the question.
Originally posted by BahariGood insight!
The basic principle is we have to make the exchange decision now. We are not completely sure about how the game will progress says 20 moves from now. There are billions of possible positions. If we know them then we can use the knowledge to come up with the best decision. In this case we may want to give up a queen for a pawn and still winning. Of course thi ...[text shortened]... ct at least during the time it is made. We can only hope our decision is correct in future too.
Originally posted by Bahariwhat I've been trying to say, is that I'd put close to zero weight on principles like this in these kinds of decision points. the reason why you go with one choice or another, should be something very concrete and specific to the position at hand. if you see something you can do with B+N, and nothing for R+p, you choose B+N. but if you see something concrete you can do with R+p, and nothing for B+N, you choose R+p.
The basic principle is we have to make the exchange decision now. We are not completely sure about how the game will progress says 20 moves from now. There are billions of possible positions. If we know them then we can use the knowledge to come up with the best decision. In this case we may want to give up a queen for a pawn and still winning. Of course thi ...[text shortened]... ct at least during the time it is made. We can only hope our decision is correct in future too.
Originally posted by wormwoodyeah, the same hapens with the eternal question "bishop or knight?", it depends
what I've been trying to say, is that I'd put close to zero weight on principles like this in these kinds of decision points. the reason why you go with one choice or another, should be something very concrete and specific to the position at hand. if you see something you can do with B+N, and nothing for R+p, you choose B+N. but if you see something concret ...[text shortened]... r to this kind of questions is almost invariably:
"it depends on the position."