Which side do you prefer here?

Nordlandia

 

r2q1r2/pp2p2k/2n1p1pp/8/2P1B3/1P2B3/P4PPP/Q4RK1 b - - 0 17

mariners234

It's not clear where black can infiltrate or where white's weaknesses are. White has lots of space. Black has damaged structure and loose king. All of this for the very low price of the exchange. Maybe an engine says black is ok, but I think almost anyone would take white.

mariners234

Ah, my engine is telling me e5 by black, and now I see d4 is an outpost. That makes me view black's position a little better than I was.

But I still like white. Feels like a position where if it's GM vs GM a strong technical player would jiu jitsu this into a win for white.

Nordlandia

Position is even or in equilibrium state of matter. And yes, would be fun to watch strong GMs play this position out!

Nordlandia

«In open positions where the knight has no outposts in the centre, the strength of two bishops and a pawn is no less (and tends to be greater) than that of a rook and knight»

Glenn Flear wrote:
The defender probably has more chances of successfully defending with the pair of bish-
ops than "with other minor piece combinations. This seems to hold true even when the board
isn’t opened up for bishops. Indeed, there is a certain school of thought that claims that ’a
pair of bishops equals a rook and knight in the ending’. I’m not sure that this assertion can be
proven, but I decided to look at it from a statistical point of view.

From a sample of 68 high-level games in the NQE of rook and knight vs two bishops (this
time with players rated 2550 and above), there were 30 wins for the rook< and knight duo, 20
for the bishop pair, and 18 draws.

The number of wins achieved by the bishops seems quite high, which may reflect the
double-edged nature of this imbalance, but the overall percentage is a respectable 57% to
43%. We can interpret this as such: a pair of bishops shouldn't be underestimated, but the
rook and knight are still superior.

Glenn Flear wrote:

Although I fortuitously saved this game it gave me the lasting impression that, ceteris paribus, rook and knight are superior to two bishops. Here, even with an extra pawn, Black was always somewhat worse. I’m also willing to bet that White’s chances are better than 57% (see the introduction to this chapter) in the initial position, but everyone is entitled to their opinion! My impression is that, in cases where the pawn structures are intact, the bishops can’t find enough targets and are thus inferior.

Prometheus_Fuschs

I like more white, the a1-h8 diagonal is up for grabs and the black king has very little protection.

 

Curiously, at depth of 33 Stockfish says it's completely equal.

MaxLange-simulator

White because of the active bishop pair, safe king and better structure. I'll enjoy the attacking potential with extra space.  

asdfasdfasd23

White is better because of the pawn on B3. 

ghost_of_pushwood

I would prefer White.  He can always improve his position, and Black has a dreary prospectless defense ahead of him.

xman720

I understand where you're coming from, but it seems weird to say that black has no plan. I would say one reasonable plan would be to trade queens and rooks and play an endgame an exchange up. White definitely can't relax here and let the pressure off against black's "dreary prospectless defense."

mariners234
xman720 wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but it seems weird to say that black has no plan. I would say one reasonable plan would be to trade queens and rooks and play an endgame an exchange up. White definitely can't relax here and let the pressure off against black's "dreary prospectless defense."

Without targets or infiltration it's typically impossible to force trades.

In particular it's well known the side with two rooks would like to trade off his "redundant" rook for the opponent's lone rook... therefore the opponent is not at all going to facilitate this.

Nordlandia

What you are referring to mariners234 is "principle of redundancy"

Penalty for the rook pair (Larry Kaufman called it "principle of redundancy")

  • Penalty for the knight pair (as two knights are less successful against the rook than any other pair of minor pieces)
  • Bonus for the bishop pair (bishops complement each other, controlling squares of different color)
pfren

White obviously has terrific compensation for being materially something like half a pawn down (two very strong, centralised bishops, pawn weaknesses for Black), but I guess there is no forced win for him.

In any case, such positions are very unpleasant to defend as Black.

ghost_of_pushwood
Nordlandia wrote:

What you are referring to mariners234 is "principle of redundancy"

 

The principle of redundancy...I see.

mariners234
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
Nordlandia wrote:

What you are referring to mariners234 is "principle of redundancy"

 

The principle of redundancy...I see.

Heh, nice.

drmrboss
mariners234 wrote:

Ah, my engine is telling me e5 by black, and now I see d4 is an outpost. That makes me view black's position a little better than I was.

But I still like white. Feels like a position where if it's GM vs GM a strong technical player would jiu jitsu this into a win for white.

At what node or depth SF says e5??? SF quickly discarded e5?? just after a few millions of node search ( a few seconds later).

 

e5 is a bad move, Qa5 is much better. 

mariners234
drmrboss wrote:
mariners234 wrote:

Ah, my engine is telling me e5 by black, and now I see d4 is an outpost. That makes me view black's position a little better than I was.

But I still like white. Feels like a position where if it's GM vs GM a strong technical player would jiu jitsu this into a win for white.

At what node or depth SF says e5??? SF quickly discarded e5?? just after a few millions of node search ( a few seconds later).

 

e5 is a bad move, Qa5 is much better. 

My engine can't seem to pick which it likes better. I tried a few different ways.

The way I trust the most is actually putting the moves on the board, letting it think for a while again, and just slowly playing it out like that.

With that method it likes the position resulting from e5 slightly better and these lines are what came out

 

 

Just letting it think a long time on the initial moves is not as good IMO, and in that case it can't seem to make up its mind which it likes more.

 

mariners234

Either way, it seems e5 is definitely not "a bad move" wink.png

drmrboss

I wanna see,  how Leela thinks. She sticks with Qa5 as her first choice(all thought thinking).

She consider e5 as fourth choice temporarily and even dont consider even as 4th choice in deeper think.

 

 

mariners234

If it's really so bad I'd like to see leela play against stockfish for a few moves. If you want to do that just message me or something.