Jan-13-03
 |
| refutor: 15.dxe5?! it's amazing the imbalanced material positions that arise in this line. smyslov played the more "sensible" 15.Qe2 v. Botvinnik instead of going for the complications of the queen sack. apparently, the queen sack is playable because this isn't a one shot deal...white has won a number of times in this line |
 |
| Jan-13-03 |
| corbinamman: After 16.Rxd1 material is equal. It's not so much a sack as an exchange. At no point is there a prolonged material imbalance. |
|
| Jan-13-03 |
| judokausa1: What a great lesson in how to win with 2 rooks vs 1 queen. |
|
Jan-15-03
|
| refutor: corbinaman, i wouldn't say that after 16.Rxd1 material is equal...riddle me this...how many pawns is an exchange worth? there is a prolonged material imbalance in this game, because you can't prove to me that a queen is worth exactly a rook, knight and pawn. |
|
Jan-15-03
 |
| Sneaky: I've heard it said that in general, 2 rooks + 1 pawn beats a queen, while 1 queen+1 pawn only draws two rooks. Hence the modern assessment of "Queen=9 points, rook=5 points." These are all just rules of thumb of course, and you have to evaluate each position on its own merits. |
|
| Jan-16-03 |
| drukenknight: yes, but if your opinion is that these are all rules of thumb, then does it matter that we count material at all? Or should be just chuck the entire theory of how to count material in order to consider each position on its own. I would submit that rules of thumb work arise simply because they have proven to be pretty useful over the long haul. |
|
| Apr-18-05 |
| Whitehat1963: Excellent game that features an interesting exchange and the player of the day. |
|
| Jun-23-05 |
| aw1988: I love dxe5. It's as if black is saying without concern "Oh. Knight. Okay, here, have queen.". |
|
sac: 15.dxe5
