|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-21-11 | | Mozart72: <AnalyzeThis> Don't step out of the fight like <DrMal> just did. Show me that in some if in not in all positions the Knight is better than the Bishop. And I don´t drink. |
|
| Oct-21-11 | | TheFocus: <Mozart> ENTIRE books have been written about this, where the Knight is stronger than the Bishop in some positions. Even Queen + Knight is usually stronger than Queen + Bishop, as advocated by Capablanca. |
|
| Oct-21-11 | | DrMAL: <Mozart72: <AnalyzeThis> Don't step out of the fight like <DrMal> just did.> Fight? What is this, tavern for pissing contest? Pretending not to understand the obvious examples I gave does not make argument. OK, I will take only only five of my lowly 0.7 pawns against your trusty 4.3 bishop this gives you 0.8 advantage (six pawns is fairer "fight"). You can be white and have first move G/5 for me G/90 for you wager all the money you like. Here is very quick eval to get you started, good luck.
click for larger view
Houdini_20_x64: 27/59 11:28 11,829,041,869
-4.09 1.Be2 |
|
| Oct-21-11 | | Mozart72: <DrMal> With all due respect, the examples you have chosen are fantasy positions, not real chess game positions. |
|
| Oct-21-11 | | DrMAL: <Mozart72> Endgame with B vs. 3P or even 4P is not fantasy, my example above merely makes contest frpm your challenge. As <TheFocus> correctly pointed out, there are other basic ways where N is stronger than B, Q+N vs. Q+B was excellent example. Bad LS bishop is common problem in several openings including variations of QGD and especially in French, Here is one game played by GM showing useless LSB that never even moved Dzindzichashvili vs Fritz, 1991 this is well known to even ELO 1200 player. Why you insist in wasting time on this is beyond me, in writing "Don't step out of the fight" or "chicken" or whatever it is roughly equivalent to you playing role of The Black Knight here, cheers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhE... |
|
| Oct-21-11 | | Mozart72: <DrMal> I have some chess piece equivalents I would like you to know. If
Q: 9
R: 4.7
B: 4.3
N: 2.7
P: 0.7
then
Q= R + B = 9
R= B + P = 5
B= N + P + P = 4.1 (Rounded to the nearest whole number) = 4 N= P + P + P + P = 2.8 (Rounded to the nearest whole number) = 3 P= 0.7 (Rounded to the nearest whole number) = 1 |
|
Oct-21-11
 | | Check It Out: I'll take a knight + 2 pawns against a bishop any day. <(B = 4.3, N+2P = 4.1)> |
|
| Oct-22-11 | | DrMAL: <CheckItOut> LOL yes Q for R+B is tasty deal too. Not to change topic too much but here is original post from Oct-17-11 buried 3 pages back now, in case someone in near future wants to learn more about game or has helpful ideas about it, cheers. <<Jul-05-10 tamar: 31 Nc1 has always bothered me.> It should, your post shows good skill like others I have seen from you. 31.Nc1?! was obviously poor and 31.Nf4 was correct probably best move. Good technique was not nearly as well known back then, so incorrect comment by Gunsberg is not surprising to me. After 31...c3 most accurate response game went from equal to big advantage black. 33.h3?! and 34.Nh2?! compounded error of 31.Nc1?! where, again, 33...a5 and 34...a4 that Tarrasch played were strongest, nearly winning. After 35.g4 black had three good moves to probably win and played one of them as computer shows. Houdini_20_x64: 32/88 7:32:22 276,600,892,023
+2.34 35. ... g5 36.fxg6 hxg6 37.Qg3 axb3 38.Nxb3
+2.07 35. ... axb3 36.axb3 g5 37.fxg6 hxg6 38.Ra2
+1.73 35. ... h6 36.Rg2 axb3 37.axb3 Nf8 38.Qf2
As 35...axb3 line suggests, 36...Ra8 was beginning of inaccurate play, 36...g5 was important to stop 37.g5 it seems Tarrasch got too hurried into winning as someone posted above. 37...Ra3 and 38...Bxa3 to snatch the pawn completed bad plan, after 39.Rg2! white was now in the lead. 39...Kh8 and 40...Nxf6 were both forced, after 40...gxf5? blunder white had winning attack 41.Ne5! or 41.Nxb3! were decisive. Tarrasch had a winning game and got too rushed or greedy or both. BTW from discussion above about 16...Ne4 supposedly being bad (18...dxe4 was only move), here is quick computer eval it takes engine at least this much depth to get proper score. "Problem" with 16...Ne4 seems once again classic case of insufficient computation time and blindly using incorrect result, as person posting often does. Houdini_20_x64: 25/62 12:43 7,065,185,657
-0.02 16. ... Ne4 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.Bxe4 dxe4
-0.17 16. ... N6d7 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.Ng3 g6
-0.21 16. ... Ng6 17.Ng3 Ne4 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 |
|
Oct-22-11
 | | LIFE Master AJ: <Check it out> Good observation, that one notation shows his whole system to be invalid. |
|
| Oct-22-11 | | Shams: I think that before somebody offers his new and improved scale it's incumbent upon him to explain what's inferior about the current one. Let's hear it, <Mozart>. |
|
Oct-22-11
 | | moronovich: <Mozart>There aresimple studies of the kind :White to move and win where black has the whole army of pawns and pieces and white only 1(ONE) sinlge little pawn.Solution is PQd8 and Nf7# next.Just to show that the value of the pieces,and listen now,DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.And that is what makes chess so charming and sometimes aquire a sort of intelligence IMO.
The King is a perfect exampel of valuedependence.A King mated in 4 is not a strong king,but a king entering many endgames as a decisive factor is a strong king.And so forth. Your theory was interesting,but it doesnt work and before you enter hopeless discussions here you could consider finding a new hobby.For your own sake.But as a comfort you could think about many inventions who started as small fractions of a bigger and more substainable picture. |
|
| Oct-22-11 | | Mozart72: <DrMal> Thanks for the full monty. |
|
| Oct-22-11 | | Mozart72: <Check It Out> Here's one for you. White to move:
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-22-11 | | Mozart72: <DrMal> Here's on for you: Q+N vs Q+B. White to move
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-22-11 | | DrMAL: <AJ: <Check it out> Good observation, that one notation shows his whole system to be invalid.> Yes it does. My first post with N or B for Ps is biggest difference, nothing left to argue. As everyone knows B or N can be worth 3Ps in middlegame, but in endgame 3Ps are worth more, this is fundamental reason why B or N cannot be more than tiny fraction higher than 3Ps in value. |
|
| Oct-22-11 | | Mozart72: <DrMal> The challenge is still in the air. Is the diagram a win or a draw? |
|
| Oct-22-11 | | Blunderdome: Well, surely pawns on c2, d3 & e4 cannot be evaluated the same as pawns on c2, e3 & g4, or c2, c3 & c4. |
|
| Oct-23-11 | | DrMAL: <Mozart72> I had respect for you from Apr-15-11 post in Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999 (where AJ once again was complete ass, especially in his attack of <Kinghunt> et al.) but you have completely canceled this. Here is my last word on your challenge to find example of N stronger than B (zillions exist of course), look at finish in Kasparov vs Leko, 2001 and then kindly confine your silly idea to your forum, its only appropriate place, thanx. |
|
| Oct-23-11 | | AnalyzeThis: This endgame was of note, with regards to the good knight vs. bad bishop. The good knight routinely won, this was the first example in chess history (in top level play) where black, (Capablanca) held with the bad bishop - and it required a magnificent defensive performance: Flohr vs Capablanca, 1935 |
|
Oct-24-11
| | LIFE Master AJ: <Moz72> I am not sure if your contrived positions mean anything at all ... but just about any tournament player would take a "pawn up (or better)" endgame with a Knight to prove that your Bishop table is WAY off base! |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<Mozart72>
you might like to study <Rethinking the Chess Pieces> by Andrew Soltis (Batsford 2004). The very first chapter discusses the age old Pawn=1, Bishop and Knight=3, etc scale we all learn as beginners. The beauty of the book is that it shows the limitations placing such absolute values have on our understanding of positions. i.e. A Knight and Bishop are 3 but everyone knows how much better a bishop is in an open position with healthy pawns on both sides of the board; the bishops together are monstrous versus two knights. I recommend the book to anyone. The piece scale is useful but like so much else, elementary rules help us grasp a subject, take our first steps, but have to be unlearned at a certain stage in order to get a deeper understanding. |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | Mozart72: <SimonWebbsTiger> Thanks for the book. |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | DrMAL: <SWT> As usual you have very helpful suggestion. I read book awhile ago it is good with info at different levels. Among other sources it draws from useful Larry Kaufman article, cheers. http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman... |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | Mozart72: My point of view is that chess needs a new chess opening classification system based on mathematics not on names or opening lines per se. What better way to understand a chess opening then by variations with permutations. |
|
| Oct-24-11 | | DrMAL: <Mozart72> Well, in making your formula try to consider some of the enormous body of chess knowledge. If you do so like many others before you, you will arrive at similar conclusions this problem has been studied ad nauseum. You are not the only mathematician on earth, but your point system is only one I have seen that absolutely refuses to acknowledge what is already indisputable in basic chess, as such it is ludicrous. It is akin to designing new airplane based on elegant new theory of aerodynamics but refusing to acknowledge force of gravity. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 44.Qg3+