|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
tactical_abyss 16-Oct-09, 23:58 |
 Deleted by tactical_abyss on 16-Oct-09, 23:59.
|
||
|
tactical_abyss 17-Oct-09, 00:09 |
|
||
|
algol 17-Oct-09, 06:53 |
Good information |
||
|
tactical_abyss 17-Oct-09, 11:48 |
I remembered this article from 2005 in Chess Life Magazine and wanted to share it with everyone.Notice the discussion about half open files and pawn value changes.Also take note to captures on the edge files that produces doubled pawns..."is on average a slightly favorable transaction"....and is "highly desirable with a Rook present".I remembered this in a few of my tournament games and had the opportunity to double my pawns on the a or h file,producing an open file for my Rooks and Bishop fianchetto gaining a winning strategy against some strong players.Basically,its sums up doubled pawns being ok with most major pieces on the board in the end file,especially Rooks,but not ok when centralized and/or towards the end of the game.The value changes and analysis by Kaufman I find quite interesting and should prove valuable to players wishing to improve their game. |
||
|
algol 17-Oct-09, 14:03 |
Deleted by algol on 17-Oct-09, 14:04.
|
||
|
algol 17-Oct-09, 14:05 |
... I read Kaufmann's article this morning and I agree that it contains very useful pointers - thanks for sharing. It reminds me a little-bit of the book Point Count Chess which I think you discussed in some other thread. That is also one of my favorite books, basic but still very useful. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 17-Oct-09, 15:19 |
For example,in many blitz games here and on other sites I play irregular and weaker openings on purpose against lesser rated opponents as a test for my opponent to see how well they do against "out of book" moves and as a test for myself to see if I can come back from a weaker position that I would normally NOT do in long corresp.games.(with a few unrated exceptions that are in my game profile).One good example is an occasional Sodium Attack where I move 1.Na3 and 2.Nh3.Many times black will then take both knights with his Bishop pair thinking that the doubling of my pawns on the a and h files is disadvantageous.It IS actually,but just ever so slightly as Kaufman would point out.The trick then,is to see if you can overcome this small disadvantage with additional tactics.In blitz anyway,I have won many a brilliant game when I applied the Sodium Attack and opened up both the b and g files placing Rook pressure and other pieces on the open file throughout the middlegame.Theoretically,most strong players would agree that the Bishop has stronger fractional value in the endgame anyway as opposed to the Knight,so exchanging your Bishop for a Knight in that type of opening is not recommended.Other openings like the Trompowski,well,perhaps....but then that is exchanging one Bishop,not two Bishops. Here is Kaufmans earlier link from 1999 on other piece value changes that may interest readers: home.comcast.net |
||
|
lighttotheright 20-Oct-09, 02:07 |
|
||
|
coopershawk 20-Oct-09, 12:41 |
Thanks and sources. It is always appreciated. |
||
|
Relative value of chessman But, as the article observed, relative values, however one might measure these, are constantly changing, dependent upon the given situation. Let us take a simple example: w In this position, were it Black to play, the pawns' value is next to zero, as they will disappear in two moves. Of course, their value would have to ne non-zero as Black can not afford NOT to take the pawn on e5. Were Black to play, say 1...Rg5?? the relative values would have to be recast. True, Black could check the king, but that wouldn't change anything: the rook lacks the time to gather in both pawns, whatever it tries. But it's white to move in the diagram position in any case, and here the relative value of the men is entirely changed. After 1.e6 (1.d7 is also good) One of the pawns is guaranteed to make it through to a queening square. Collectively, then, you could say that that pair of pawns is worth 9 pawns (the standard value of a queen), that is, 4.5 pawns each! If we were to change just one thing in this position, and place the WK at a1, say, all the values change again. White cannot play 1e6 or 1.d7 as 1...Rh1 mates! So in the end, I think the standard value system (worked out by Fred Reinfeld, I gather) has two useful purposes, and any refinements probably don't help a whole lot. The first is as a very general guideline. If you give up a queen, make sure you get 9 pawns for it. More 'useful' though, is the subjective - the aesthetic - effect to which an apparently objective comparison of values leads. Consider the close of possibly the most well-known game ever: w White has already given up two rooks and a bishop for a pawn. He now has a mate in two if he can decoy a knight away from protecting one of the squares c7 or e7. That can be achieved effectively by 22.Qf6+!, forcing the g8-knight to move - a decoy 'sacrifice'. What, then, was the value of the queen? Clearly, less than the value of the knight at g8! But if that is the case, it doesn't really make sense to call it a sacrifice (leaving aside the argument that as the move forces mate, it isn't really a sacrifice anyhow). It would certainly diminish the aesthetic pleasure we get from the move if we say, 'oh well, the queen in this position isn't worth as much as the knight anyhow.' We know that the queen's strength is in its mobility, and indeed it uses that mobility against the relative immobility of Black's army, to force a quick win. That is why the move is so pleasing. The relative values, the 'normal' state of affairs, has been overturned. That will always be a source of pleasure, of wonder, even, at the nature of chess. So I tend to stick to 'Reinfeld's' system of values, but without allowing it too much to affect my judgement in respect of what I judge to be the 'real' relative values in any given position. Of course, sometimes that judgement goes awry... Cheers, Ion |
||
|
Oops... Because I placed the WK on e1 (not thinking), Black's rook gains time with a check at e5, whichever of White's pawns advances. So the pawns' value would again be close to zilch. Had the King stood at b1,c1, f1 or g1, then 1.e6 or 1.d7 would have won (note that the WK need not have been on the rear rank, but let's leave the other possibilities aside for now). OK, suppose the King stood at d1? Then 1.e6?? Rd6+ 2.Kc1 Rxd6 3.e7 Re6 etc. but how about 1.d7!? In fact Black can not haul in the pawn, even though the WK is on the same file, at least, not without allowing the e-pawn to run. Sorry about that... Ion |
||
|
tactical_abyss 21-Oct-09, 18:09 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 22-Oct-09, 14:18.
|
||
|
baronderkilt 21-Oct-09, 22:22 |
Gotta love those Bishops ... *** I read somewhere that 2-Bishops use is considered a "Class A" skill, as to when a player learns and becomes effective with it. Although my own 2-Bishops skill could be better, wherein I often find myself trading my Bishops "dream for small desires" when I do have them, to simplify for "just enough" edge ... I still have to love the pair. The beauty being, like tactical_abyss is saying, they tend to get stronger as the game goes on and the position begins to open up. Since it usually Does do that, it is very hard to keep them from getting stronger, unless you are willing to try locking up parts of the position, to better serve your knights, which unfortuanately tends to go more towards making things more drawish then than more winnish, in most cases. *** I did have a co-worker tho, in the Mutual of Omaha Chess Championships, who was probably Class A skill, but such a "Natural" with them, that he could make his Knights dance like ballerinas in horseshoes Harald knew it, and would very much favor his Knights, and like to keep them and get the other guys off the board. It could be dealt with, but only at all kinds of stress and care in the process, and focusing upon N moves. So tried the experiment of pinning and taking both his Knights early and sure enough my game was much less uncomfortable. I think it even took the joy out of his game, largely. But he may be the best natural knight user I'd ever seen; except for Bogg here at GK that is. *** Once I played a crazy game myself where I had 2 Rooks vs 2 Bishops and was having fits of it keeping my Rooks safe against his open lines. Until it occurred to me (duh) to simply Stop moving the Rooks out of attacks unless truly necessary. Let him TAKE a Rook with Bishop and I'd still have The Other Exchange and a win. But such was the fear, or psych value perhaps, of the Bishop pair that he had me going defensive for a number of moves out of too much respect being given to them! haha Chess is a strange and fun game. }8-) |
||
|
tactical_abyss 22-Oct-09, 02:04 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 22-Oct-09, 14:18.
|
||
|
tactical_abyss 23-Oct-09, 15:19 |
The Knight is another perfect example when placed on the a or h edge file.The value of the Knight is reduced many,many times for obvious reasons....it now has its movement and opponent piece capture ability reduced to 50% since it cannot move to the right or left depending upon what file its on(a or h).Does this mean that your game is at a disadvantage?Not necessarily,but many times it can lead to a disadvantage if the Knight is not moved off that file pronto,especially in the game opening.Most of the time it is logically better to have a Knight that has its movement NOT restricted,than restricted on an edge file...thus the "value"of the Knight on an edge file is normally reduced,just like edge pawns.The purpose of Kaufmans accurate article is to explain the literal values of pieces in certain situations.It does not contend that your game will be at a disadvantage with doubled edge pawns or a knight on the edge file...but by the same token it may very well lead to a game loss for those players who do not know how to contend with those pieces as the game progresses with the proper tactics and rating abilities. |
||
|
Baron,shamash,coopershawk,lighttotheright and others... Most of you guys are all gone now or passed away.Together we made GK the best for many years.Things have changed,times have changed and not for the better on GK.But I will remember you all as I say goodbye myself,at least for years,maybe forever.I honor many like baron and shamash who raised GK to new stellar heights.Legends cannot be replaced in the exact same way or equaled,but I was proud to have been in the presence of excellence and the true legends of GK from a very long time ago. Au revoir all. Joe TA deeper insight |
||
|
|
||
|
very excellent description an excellent information you provide! an thank you baronderkilt for exellent information on bishop! bishop overlook lot of time so great to read topic often overlook! |
||
|
euro_pop_legend 10-Feb-26, 20:48 |
Deleted by euro_pop_legend on 13-Feb-26, 11:13.
|
||
|
euro_pop_legend 10-Feb-26, 21:15 |
Deleted by euro_pop_legend on 13-Feb-26, 11:13.
|
||
|
euro_pop_legend 10-Feb-26, 21:36 |
Deleted by euro_pop_legend on 13-Feb-26, 11:13.
|
||
|
euro_pop_legend 13-Feb-26, 11:12 |
Deleted by euro_pop_legend on 13-Feb-26, 11:30.
|
||
|
New link: www.scribd.com Again this IS part of "CHESS THEORY"as I have always ascribed to,especially in my old Deeper Chess theory Club of bygone years with pawn flux evaluations and positional change.Again,I originally seen this in my copy of Chess Life Magazine.Excellent report.There are those who "scoff"at chess theory and pawn eval flux as I could quote them on in other posts,yet they will kudos some members who discuss chess theory like in this thread,while of course never giving credit to me where it is due....the one who started this whole thread and brought it to life with my own comments as well. Sounds "contradictive" to me to say in so many words(by others)that chess theory is boring and a waste of time,yet they simultaneously applaud those who discuss chess theory like in this thread.Unbelievable. |
||
|
P.S. |
