@LoekBergman Thanks. Another question: in this example you posted, in terms of future scenario the player was aiming to reach, should it be explained some way as a pattern or a collection of features?
Positions engines get wrong ( please contribute )
Sort:
This position was published in a French magazine in 1912, and then appeared in Hans Kmoch, Pawn Power in Chess. I set it up and played it against Stockfish 7. The computer thought it had an overwhelming advantage until it declared a draw by the fifty move rule.
Ziryab wrote:
This position was published in a French magazine in 1912, and then appeared in Hans Kmoch, Pawn Power in Chess. I set it up and played it against Stockfish 7. The computer thought it had an overwhelming advantage until it declared a draw by the fifty move rule.
lol Oh! That so hilarious! Any duffer will know this is a draw!
@icfb2003: In this game Nezhmetdinov made a sacrifice, which he could not calculate to the end. But he must have had the conviction that it was very strong. It was not obvious to anyone. His opponent for instance did not see the sacrifice. That is why I do not think that it was a pattern. A famous game with a long combination based on a pattern is imho the one between Steinitz and von Bardeleben:
The game of Nezhmetdinov was too complicated for that. That is why I think that he decided for the sacrifice based on some features. Two being the vulnerability of the fields f6 and f7. But how he could evaluate the vulnerability of those two fields being of more value than a queen against two minor pieces is a big mystery to me.
they might think that rook and pawn endgames are drawn
computers say black is winning
@lcfb2003: there is not a particular pattern between those examples, but I think that there is a statistical relationship between them: they all occur very rare.
Take for instance this pearl from Nezhmethdinov:
Who would ever think of this queen sacrifice at move 12? It takes a genius to find it.