Does this position favor White or Black? - Chess Forums - Page 3

cigoL · 2011-10-08T14:18:54-07:00

Trying to understand how to evaluate a position, I've been starring at this one for quite some time. Who does it favor? Any thoughts? Thanks!

checkmateibeatu

Oct 9, 2011

0

#41

cigoL wrote:

No, checkmate..., it wasn't. What makes you ask?

I came across this position as I was studying the Ruy Lopez: Schliemann Defense.

Good.

Elubas

Oct 9, 2011

0

#42

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Elubas wrote:

cigoL wrote:

Good point, Elubas. This human tendency to looking at things from a certain point of way (a bias), is indeed problematic. Many interesting studies have been made about it. If we could rid ourselves of this "feature" we could very well gain some hundred rating points instantly. A fascinating thought, actually!

So, now the question is: how do we do that? Maybe we can't.

It's very difficult! It's what makes chess evaluation so tough. I would say experience counts: playing in positions like this will help you have a much better idea of what will happen compared to trying to speculate whose advantages will rule from a position you have never seen before.

To me it is not about speculation. This is how I train myself. To be honest, this is one of the important method that I use to train myself to be a supposedly GM-level chess player. I want to be able to recognize positions/patterns. I want to be able to see patterns or key feature in a position. I want to know who wins and who loses in a certain random position, and of course how to win the position, such as where my King should go, to the right or to the left

Yusuf, I don't want my evaluations to be speculations either. But let's face it, chess is really hard; it's incredibly difficult to determine when one given pattern will rule a position, let alone sifting through several . The best we can do is to try to make our assessments more and more accurate. But it's just really tough -- sometimes a certain pawn structure will be favorable for one player; change the position of his bishop, make it the other guy's move, then the structure favors him!

Elubas

Oct 9, 2011

0

#43

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Elubas wrote:lol, Yusuf, you've got someone who disagrees with you: Houdini! Houdini believes the game to be dead even, and it thinks that 6 Qe2 is the best move.

Looks like you need to teach houdini a lesson!

Or perhaps it just doesn't understand the depth of your chess intellect

Hehehe of course. I imagine a perfect chess engine. She doesn't give real numbers such as +0.04 or +0.56. All she knows is 0 (for draw) and # (for mate). What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much advantage we have, sometimes it is impossible to force a win with best play. That's why I used the word almost (as in "Black almost win here") to prepare for this kind of comment like yours hehe.

This comment frankly shows quite a misunderstanding of computers. It can say that one side is better but not winning. For example, +.9 means that it thinks white is better but not winning. But if it says 0.00 right away in the opening, it means that not only is it drawn, it's equal.

You clearly have no clue about just how strong computers are, and because of that you have an unbreakable stubbornness. You should play them. It'll open your eyes.

Elubas wrote:

But in all seriousness, it's not that you make bad points. The problem here though is that we are all talking about the position very abstractly: We are listing features for white and black, possible goals for white and black, but are having trouble answering this question: whose plan will actually work?

Having a clear plan is half towards win Black has the initiative. It will be easier to understand this position if we know how to play for the endgame.

I don't think you get it. What I'm saying is we don't know if black is going to cruise along with his kingside majority, or if white is going to give black problems before that. It's a long way from being exploited, and white isn't going to sit there and let him push it. If white is attacking the e4 pawn, or hitting the k side, black may never have a chance to exploit it. This is the kind of speculation we need to do: can white put enough pressure on e4? Or will black's pawn hold? Only concrete variations will truly answer this question effectively.

yusuf_prasojo

Oct 9, 2011

0

#44

Elubas wrote:

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Hehehe of course. I imagine a perfect chess engine. She doesn't give real numbers such as +0.04 or +0.56. All she knows is 0 (for draw) and # (for mate). What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much advantage we have, sometimes it is impossible to force a win with best play. That's why I used the word almost (as in "Black almost win here") to prepare for this kind of comment like yours hehe.

This comment frankly shows quite a misunderstanding of computers. It can say that one side is better but not winning. For example, +.9 means that it thinks white is better but not winning. But if it says 0.00 right away in the opening, it means that not only is it drawn, it's equal.

Of course I understand what you mean, I'm a programmer. But if you understood me, I was talking philosophically. For a perfect engine, there is no "better" but "winning", because it's horizon is ultimate.

Elubas wrote:

You clearly have no clue about just how strong computers are, and because of that you have an unbreakable stubbornness. You should play them. It'll open your eyes.

Hehehe is that so??

cigoL

Oct 9, 2011

0

#45

Why is that good, checkmate...? And why did you ask in the first place?

checkmateibeatu

Oct 9, 2011

0

#46

cigoL wrote:

Why is that good, checkmate...? And why did you ask in the first place?

It's good because you're not cheating (just making sure).

Elubas

Oct 9, 2011

0

#47

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Elubas wrote:

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Hehehe of course. I imagine a perfect chess engine. She doesn't give real numbers such as +0.04 or +0.56. All she knows is 0 (for draw) and # (for mate). What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much advantage we have, sometimes it is impossible to force a win with best play. That's why I used the word almost (as in "Black almost win here") to prepare for this kind of comment like yours hehe.

This comment frankly shows quite a misunderstanding of computers. It can say that one side is better but not winning. For example, +.9 means that it thinks white is better but not winning. But if it says 0.00 right away in the opening, it means that not only is it drawn, it's equal.

Of course I understand what you mean, I'm a programmer. But if you understood me, I was talking philosophically. For a perfect engine, there is no "better" but "winning", because it's horizon is ultimate.

Well, I don't get your point. Could you clarify? It evalutes at around .00-.05. Not only is it not winning for black, it's not even close.

Elubas wrote:

You clearly have no clue about just how strong computers are, and because of that you have an unbreakable stubbornness. You should play them. It'll open your eyes.

Hehehe is that so??

Yeah, sorry. If you did you would take its opinion pretty darn seriously, and in turn take a second or third look about what you said previously. You should play them. It'll open your eyes.

cigoL

Oct 9, 2011

0

#48

Cheating?

checkmateibeatu

Oct 9, 2011

0

#49

cigoL wrote:

Cheating?

If you ask about a game in progress, it is cheating. But that's not what you're doing, so it's okay.

cigoL

Oct 9, 2011

0

#50

Ah! I see. No, that's not what I'm doing. And why in the world would anyone do that? Then you might as well use an engine, to make the moves for me. Kind of pointless to play, then.

I'm preparing for the themed tournament in 2-3 weeks from now.

yusuf_prasojo

Oct 9, 2011

0

#51

Elubas wrote:

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Elubas wrote:

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Hehehe of course. I imagine a perfect chess engine. She doesn't give real numbers such as +0.04 or +0.56. All she knows is 0 (for draw) and # (for mate). What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much advantage we have, sometimes it is impossible to force a win with best play. That's why I used the word almost (as in "Black almost win here") to prepare for this kind of comment like yours hehe.

This comment frankly shows quite a misunderstanding of computers. It can say that one side is better but not winning. For example, +.9 means that it thinks white is better but not winning. But if it says 0.00 right away in the opening, it means that not only is it drawn, it's equal.

Of course I understand what you mean, I'm a programmer. But if you understood me, I was talking philosophically. For a perfect engine, there is no "better" but "winning", because it's horizon is ultimate.

Well, I don't get your point. Could you clarify? It evalutes at around .00-.05. Not only is it not winning for black, it's not even close.

Current computers cannot see the end of the line (cannot solve chess). That's why it acts like human, giving values to every single positions that it can see in its horizon (calculation depth). But if the computer can see the end, it will only know if the position is a win (#) or a draw (0). No real numbers.

I live in a city where a piece of chess software only "worth" $3. Junior10 capability is not anywhere near the other software capability, but it does exactly what I need to evaluate positions. If you don't understand why, you can ask people who has work a lot with chess engines.

AndyClifton

Oct 9, 2011

0

#52

I suppose I'd probably look it up in an openings book (or something crazy like that).

checkmateibeatu

Oct 9, 2011

0

#53

akintews wrote:

checkmateibeatu wrote:

cigoL wrote:

Cheating?

If you ask about a game in progress, it is cheating. But that's not what you're doing, so it's okay.

What you're doing in this thread is not.

I was just makin' sure.

ilikeflags

Oct 9, 2011

0

#54

of course you were...

electricpawn

Oct 9, 2011

0

#55

Black's dark squared bishop on d6 prevent's him from develping the d pawn and the light squared bishop. His missing f pawn is a positional weakness that could create problems later in the game. The white pieces can all be developed easily, and his position is clearly better.

GhostNight

Oct 9, 2011

0

#56

This turned out to be a very fruitful positional chess discussion, with some heavy hitters then me giving analysis. But I feel no one can dispute my comment, "This game is really very young and can really go either why depending on the strength of the players"! so position is still quite equal at this juncture!?

AndyClifton

Oct 9, 2011

0

#57

Hello, over here!!! [Waves arms frantically] Isn't this position in a chess book or something? I mean, hasn't it been discussed (and played) by a lot better players than any of us are?

Just wondering...

yusuf_prasojo

Oct 9, 2011

0

#58

electricpawn wrote:Black's dark squared bishop on d6 prevent's him from develping the d pawn and the light squared bishop. His missing f pawn is a positional weakness that could create problems later in the game. The white pieces can all be developed easily, and his position is clearly better.

Yes, true, but the d-pawn issue can be fixed easily. And what's wrong with the open f-file? The following is just to show that the d-pawn issue is only temporary. Hmmm it seems that in this line the e4-pawn will be eliminated sooner than I previously thought. I didn't see if the e4-pawn can be eliminated other than with f3, will analyze later with my engine.

Pawnpusher3

Oct 9, 2011

0

#59

Bxc6 dxc6 Nd2 and whites better

Elubas

Oct 9, 2011

0

#60

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Elubas wrote:

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Elubas wrote:

yusuf_prasojo wrote:

Hehehe of course. I imagine a perfect chess engine. She doesn't give real numbers such as +0.04 or +0.56. All she knows is 0 (for draw) and # (for mate). What I'm trying to say is, no matter how much advantage we have, sometimes it is impossible to force a win with best play. That's why I used the word almost (as in "Black almost win here") to prepare for this kind of comment like yours hehe.

This comment frankly shows quite a misunderstanding of computers. It can say that one side is better but not winning. For example, +.9 means that it thinks white is better but not winning. But if it says 0.00 right away in the opening, it means that not only is it drawn, it's equal.

Of course I understand what you mean, I'm a programmer. But if you understood me, I was talking philosophically. For a perfect engine, there is no "better" but "winning", because it's horizon is ultimate.

Well, I don't get your point. Could you clarify? It evaluates at around .00-.05. Not only is it not winning for black, it's not even close.

Current computers cannot see the end of the line (cannot solve chess). That's why it acts like human, giving values to every single positions that it can see in its horizon (calculation depth). But if the computer can see the end, it will only know if the position is a win (#) or a draw (0). No real numbers.

...But the computer can't see till the end. They haven't solved chess yet. And because of that your last sentence doesn't currently apply. I still don't understand what your point is...