I believe the Ne4-f6 falls apart after a d5. Black has 4 defenders to white's 3 attackers, meaning black can keep a pawn on d5 to prevent Ne4. The Bg5/e5 idea works after h5 because f6 leaves g6 weak/hanging.
why engine in suggesting h4 on move 6?
Sort:
instead of disputing over it, arrange an unrated game and see how you handle this position against each other.
Yes, I think it is hard to deny that black has a easy to play position. lost? No but I hope black is a high priest in defense . He's going to need it :-)
And I wouldn't call h4 a waiting move. I see it more as a test, see if black is good or not. if black doesn't respond well it's finished very quickly.
And if he does respond well h4 hasn't done any damage to white.
So in that sense you can call it a waiting move but for me it's more a challenging move.
And I wouldn't call h4 a waiting move. I see it more as a test, see if black is good or not. if black doesn't respond well it's finished very quickly.
And if he does respond well h4 hasn't done any damage to white.
So in that sense you can call it a waiting move but for me it's more a challenging move.
Sorry, has no easy play of course
my point is you talk too much @fiveofswords. anyone who reads chess literature can use these terms. if you disagree about a variation, play it. show concrete moves. general considerations is not satisfying since it is vague and general and people look at these factors differently. and why do you try so hard to prove you are right, you self righteous fool?
why are you using an engine ? is also a pertinant question i think
Yes, and anything reasonable like be2 will white a much more comfortable position. It a bit early to try and knock black flat in concrete fashion.
@ANOK1,
That was a game I played, and I play without engines. I do analyse afterwards with engine to improve my chess. And during that process I try to find the logic behind engine moves so that my chess improves. and in this case I couldn't figure out why h4, and would I be able to come up with such move if I have situations that requires it. Now I am thinking about the h4 in the caro-kane which threaten the bishop, and make sense also because white will castel queen side, so h4 is not a loss of tempo either. so maybe engine was pusshing to attack the fiancheto here with plans to castel queen side ...
I'm not sure there is some truth in an expresion like "engine has a plan".
It just tries every possible move at some depth, and then evaluate the final position with its material and positional factors.
Yes, so trying to give meaning to computer moves at very early stage of game is pointless. A human trying to learn from software isn't going to work. Not even the top players calculate millions of lines a second. So should just use software to check if have made blunders.
6.h4 is a can-opener move. White has a huge edge and just needs to open a can of whupass on black's passive position.
6.h4 fits the needs of the position.
TwoMove wrote:
Yes, so trying to give meaning to computer moves at very early stage of game is pointless. A human trying to learn from software isn't going to work. Not even the top players calculate millions of lines a second. So should just use software to check if have made blunders.
-------------
I'm impressed that an engine recommended a pawn storm in that position. I think most human masters would suggest something similar but an engine recommending such a long-term attacking idea is scary!
SmyslovFan wrote:
I'm impressed that an engine recommended a pawn storm in that position. I think most human masters would suggest something similar but an engine recommending such a long-term attacking idea is scary!
I have been wondering the same thing. Although I'm the one who somewhat implied above that the computer was following a plan (of a pawn storm), the situation could be a mixture of both situations discussed: the program could be clueless other than brute force lookahead evaluations, *and* could have been programmed to make a certain move or moves under certain conditions, such as when it has a strong enough center and when it sees an opponent's fianchetto in an opening where the opponent usually castles on that side. That was what I was assuming, in fact: that somebody had programmed that specific situation, although since I don't know anything about the program, it's hard to say.
This is "simple" AI.
Pattern recognition
Adding or subtracting points for specific elements (what you said, a strong center, a fiancetto, rochade or not and so on.
This means brute force isn't needed and it will play almost human, play moves almost like "I see this, that is also true so a piece offer on h6 must be good"
in this case , although by far not a master, I was surprised though , I wouldn't have played it yet. It would have played a few "normal" development moves first.
Pattern recognition
Adding or subtracting points for specific elements (what you said, a strong center, a fiancetto, rochade or not and so on.
This means brute force isn't needed and it will play almost human, play moves almost like "I see this, that is also true so a piece offer on h6 must be good"
in this case , although by far not a master, I was surprised though , I wouldn't have played it yet. It would have played a few "normal" development moves first.
i see i kinda figured it was a post match thing but im so anti chess engines that that was my first reaction ,
[COMMENT DELETED]
It's quite funny wasting my time analysing such a dumb opening. Found at 20 ply Houdini gives about 0.1 difference between h4 and be2 if think that relevant for determining best move. After h4 h5 which for some reason software finds considering as hard as people in this thread, the difference reduces further to about 0.05. So don't think it is at all critical for white to play h4. White has a large advantage for anything reasonable.
Fiveofswords wrote:
Rational_Optimist wrote:
my point is you talk too much @fiveofswords. anyone who reads chess literature can use these terms. if you disagree about a variation, play it. show concrete moves. general considerations is not satisfying since it is vague and general and people look at these factors differently. and why do you try so hard to prove you are right, you self righteous fool?
he asked a question and i felt interested enough in the challenge of explaining it in a way i hoped a less experienced player might actually get it. this requires a lot of talk because the concept is rather subtle. i can see i failed because my response was hostile but its rather silly to fault me for trying to answer a question. variations dont help because theres an infinite number and things are not forced yet. if the move were legit forcing open lines that white could attack on then it would be easier to explain this move. but black could if he chooses prevent any opening with something like h5 or h6 and really those are not so weakening as moves. also he can omit such prophylaxis without getting killed for it. h4 just is a move thats going to be difficult to understand but i understand it and tried to articulate my thoughts on it...apparently accidentally offending you in the process. this forum is funny.
i meant "self righteous fool" on a lighter note. sorry for coming off as too critical and offended.
Have you noticed that, of the many people to post an explanation of 6 h4, you are the only one who feels it is a waiting move, as opposed to an agressive attempt to punish Black's lacklustre opening play?
it would look more aggressive if the file could actually be opened. but it cannot.
h4-h5-hxg6. Goal achieved.
theres so many ways black could prevent that. or he could ignore it and be fine with just trading the rooks off. obviously if hes really worried about this he could spend a non developing move himself on h5. then what.
Like I've said several times, I prefer the h6 plan if Black doesn't commit to castling.
...h5 is a concession IMO. It weakens the g5 square. We can employ the plan e5/Bg5/Ne4-f6