|
Main
Date: 13 Sep 2007 23:34:14
From: Sanny
Subject: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
Till now GetClub Chess only avoid double pawn formation and isolated pawns. Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html What type of Pawn structures are good and what type of pawn structure are bad? 1. If Pawns are on same rows not protecting each other {in front of King}. (Is it good) King has no place to move??? 2. All pawns protecting other making a long diagonal Chain. (Is it good) A pawn Exchange can bring it down to Isolated Pawns??? 3. Two pawns on side protecting middle pawn. (Is it good) There is a hole in Center??? How to find weak spots? Whenever a Pawn is played we have toi leave a diagonal hole for bishop or a place for opponent Knight. Can you tell me how to tell which pawn structure is better. I went through lots of sites to know about Pawn Formations but could not find any concrete example. How to tell whether a Pawn formation is weak or strong? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
|
Date: 19 Sep 2007 02:23:05
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
> > Every month prize is given to toppers. Zebediah plays with master > > level. By winning 12 games he gets a score of 3*12=36 > > Yes, but perhaps he is not disconnected five hundred > times during those games. Right now I am playing the > Easy level and your program flatly refuses to make a > move. Here is the displayed time so far: 4130 seconds > and counting. I already tried restarting in a fresh > window. Yes there was a bug, now removed which was telling it to think longer. Please refresh your page ort better restart your computer to reload the new program which will never think so long. So now on higher levels will not take much long time. Try the game again with easy level and let me know the problem has gone or not. Bye Sanny Play Chess at:http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
|
|
Date: 19 Sep 2007 00:52:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 19, 2:02 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > > > Now I see you have to struggle quite hard to beat even the beginner > > > level. Play 5 games with Easy Level and lets see how many of them you > > > are able to win. > > > Okay, I admit it: in addition to the fact that it takes > > half the night to play one game at the decent levels, > > there is also the fact that your fastest levels have > > higher ratings by far than the much slower ones, so > > there is no incentive for me to torture myself very often. > > Every month prize is given to toppers. Zebediah plays with master > level. By winning 12 games he gets a score of 3*12=36 Yes, but perhaps he is not disconnected five hundred times during those games. Right now I am playing the Easy level and your program flatly refuses to make a move. Here is the displayed time so far: 4130 seconds and counting. I already tried restarting in a fresh window. > While you play with beginner level, Even if you win 30 games with > beginner your score for the month will be 1/3 * 30 =10. Right. But at least I am able to finish games against the Beginner level; unfinished games net zero points, and if I die of old age waiting for the program to move I will lose rating points. ; >D > So every month Highest score will be of person who beats higher level. > > Beginner : 0.3 for each game you win > Easy: 1.0 for each game you win > Normal 2.0 for each game you win > Master: 3.0 for each game you win > > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at:http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html In reality, beating the higher levels takes a lot of time, so it is probably simpler to beat one of the middle levels repeatedly instead. For example, if Zebediah were to start a game against the Master level at the same time as I started one against the Easy level, he would still be in the opening when I deliver checkmate and begin game #2. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 19 Sep 2007 00:02:22
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
> > Now I see you have to struggle quite hard to beat even the beginner > > level. Play 5 games with Easy Level and lets see how many of them you > > are able to win. > > Okay, I admit it: in addition to the fact that it takes > half the night to play one game at the decent levels, > there is also the fact that your fastest levels have > higher ratings by far than the much slower ones, so > there is no incentive for me to torture myself very often. Every month prize is given to toppers. Zebediah plays with master level. By winning 12 games he gets a score of 3*12=36 While you play with beginner level, Even if you win 30 games with beginner your score for the month will be 1/3 * 30 =10. So every month Highest score will be of person who beats higher level. Beginner : 0.3 for each game you win Easy: 1.0 for each game you win Normal 2.0 for each game you win Master: 3.0 for each game you win Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
|
|
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:48:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 18, 11:52 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > Out of Last 10 games you played 9 games with beginner and only 1 with > easy level. If you had played with Easy & Normal levels there would > have been a few more defeats. Quite possibly hundreds of them. Your program is far too strong for me, so its *slowness* has nothing to do with why I choose to duck the Advance and Master levels, nosireeBob! > Now I see you have to struggle quite hard to beat even the beginner > level. Play 5 games with Easy Level and lets see how many of them you > are able to win. Okay, I admit it: in addition to the fact that it takes half the night to play one game at the decent levels, there is also the fact that your fastest levels have higher ratings by far than the much slower ones, so there is no incentive for me to torture myself very often. > Beginner plays a bit weaker moves so you get ahead of > it. Ah, so that's it. I thought maybe it was psychology. ; >D I am playing these games on a notebook computer using wireless internet access, and there are numerous disconnects during play. If I happen to be playing, say, Advance level and it takes an hour to move but then disconnects, I have to reconnect and then wait yet another hour for it to come up with that same move. This is very annoying. Let me just state that even though the program has serious problems with tactics, as clearly shown when it is being mated and puts up little resistance, it does on occasion play good chess and I feel that I must play accurately to stay on top. While others continue with their heckling, I alone seem to have noticed that things aren't always quite so easy as they make it sound here. Part of the reason for that may be that a few of them are using computers, and thus have not "felt" the improvement as Fritz/Rybka are at the top grandmaster levels -- out of range, so to speak. A few of these people want to claim that GetClub is still at the USCF Class E level, but that is not the reality. While it still can blunder like such a player, it can also play well at times, and my guess is that it has reached the "club player" status on its higher levels, Master and Advanced. But it will never achieve true "Expert" status until the shallow tactics have been fully mastered. No way can a program which consistently allows itself to be checkmated in two moves instead of five or six be taken very seriously, even if it pulls off a few upsets, now and then. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 18 Sep 2007 15:29:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 18, 8:18 am, Mihai Suba <[email protected] > wrote: > No more slice quots (at least from me), so I can write: "I'm not an > idiot", without the fear to get commented: 'The author says: "I'm" and > later:"an idiot"! > > Most of the human chess player's strength does not stay in the > conscious mind which can only deal with calculation, remembering > things and perhaps a few more activities. All other stuff lays in his > subconscious mind ready to be retrieved somehow. According to experts > the subconscious takes 90-95% of total brain capacity. > Depending how the latter is organized, can assimilate etc., the > efficiency of what we retrieve can change a lot. We can hardly explain > what's there, the same as we can hardly explain most of our dreams. In > our memory, we may have bad examples, incomplete or mistaken rules, > wrongly associated concepts, etc. which we cannot forget, meaning that > the concient can call the subconscient but not command it. In a > program is much simpler, apart from quick calculation, 100% focus on > subject, 100% health and shape, 0% mania and so on, you can just > update the information, delete the redundant, wrong or even > contradictory information etc. We can put or leave the queen "en > prise" and get mated in one, just to mention the extremes, but the > program shouldn't. Bad omen if our friend's program does it, but a > simple checking-against-blunders function will solve it. The problem > is not tactical calculation (that's what computers and programs are > for) but, the length of variations (horizon) and the evaluation stick > at their end. As I said before, and gave a link to an article, the > evaluation function is the most important, as it helps trimming the > exponential tree of variations and choosing the main lines to go, thus > getting a larger "horizon"; moreover, the labels stick at the end of > those "main lines" be more trustworthy. BTW, the idea of a secondary > function to qualify the "trustworthyness" or stability of the > evaluation looks great to me (or was it already done?). This way the > ridiculous jumps in evaluation (-10.10 to White mates in 8 -BTW did > you proof it?) > > If Sunny lost confidence in his program and uses it as a Kempelen's > Turk (I saw you are playing some little money out there!), it means we > are losing our time. I have read technical stuff, by programmers such as Robert Hyatt, which talked about pruning techniques and all sorts of tricks to speed up the search. But as far as I can see, Sanny has yet to master even the most basic concepts; actually, it is supposedly his "team" of programmers who are lacking here. IMO, the single most important step, apart from screening out illegal moves and knowing something about material valuation, is implementing tactical search extensions so that you don't get hung up at say, five plys and hang a piece. The program needs these extensions so it can look to the end whenever there are exchanges or checks, and not get chopped off at some random point in the middle. Okay, if the checks never end you must cut it off somewhere, but normally there will be a series of piece and pawn exchanges no deeper than ten or so plies, and getting this right is crucial, just as it is for human players. Having played his program countless times and read him explaining what went wrong afterward, it is obvious that in terms of tactics the program can stoop as low as USCF 200! : >D So when Sanny comes and asks how to implement the subtleties of Pawn Structure Chess by Andy Soltis or Pawn Power in Chess by Hans Kmoch, I can only sigh, and shake my head in disbelief. It is akin to a USCF 1000 player asking to learn the main line of the Najdorf Sicilian twenty moves deep, so he can take on the local Experts. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 18 Sep 2007 20:04:21
From: Macchess
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
Sanny a �crit : > What type of Pawn structures are good and what type of pawn structure > are bad? Sanny, Could you avoid cross posting to this newsgroup? You are polluting. Your questions is a good question, but it does belong more in the rec.games.chess.analysis group than it does here. Nevertheless, you should consult some chess theory about it. It all depends what level you play on. If you are around the level of your program, I would say that you should first improve on tactics by searching deeper. As a clue, unless you beat GNUChess, tactics remain most important. At a level of 1700 (not your score, but FIDE elo) pawn structure starts to be important. At levels of 2000 and above (again FIDE) in serious games (2h/40 moves), pawn structure often decides the game. BTW, I wonder what structure your program has. AB searching with null-move? Stress on evaluation function or stress on depth? How deep are you following exchanges and how wide is the tree you search? Best regards, Yves http://macchess.internetcontact.be
|
|
Date: 18 Sep 2007 09:52:14
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
> Recently, I have gotten the general impression that > I am playing a human opponent at GetClub, not a > computer. It's all booked up in some opening lines, > and makes human-like moves while still overlooking > obvious tactics on occasion -- tactics it never would > have missed a few months ago. There are also a lot > of disconnects during play. The one thing which > argues against a human behind the curtain is stupid > Rook moves; computers are notorious for these, or > at least the very weak ones are. When Sanny comes > here and says "try to beat the program NOW" I wonder > if he is pulling off some trick, but every time it is still > beatable. Out of Last 10 games you played 9 games with beginner and only 1 with easy level. If you had played with Easy & Normal levels there would have been a few more defeats. Now I see you have to struggle quite hard to beat even the beginner level. Play 5 games with Easy Level and lets see how many of them you are able to win. Beginner plays a bit weaker moves so you get ahead of it. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.getclub.com/Chess.html
|
|
Date: 18 Sep 2007 13:18:43
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
No more slice quots (at least from me), so I can write: "I'm not an idiot", without the fear to get commented: 'The author says: "I'm" and later:"an idiot"! Most of the human chess player's strength does not stay in the conscious mind which can only deal with calculation, remembering things and perhaps a few more activities. All other stuff lays in his subconscious mind ready to be retrieved somehow. According to experts the subconscious takes 90-95% of total brain capacity. Depending how the latter is organized, can assimilate etc., the efficiency of what we retrieve can change a lot. We can hardly explain what's there, the same as we can hardly explain most of our dreams. In our memory, we may have bad examples, incomplete or mistaken rules, wrongly associated concepts, etc. which we cannot forget, meaning that the concient can call the subconscient but not command it. In a program is much simpler, apart from quick calculation, 100% focus on subject, 100% health and shape, 0% mania and so on, you can just update the information, delete the redundant, wrong or even contradictory information etc. We can put or leave the queen "en prise" and get mated in one, just to mention the extremes, but the program shouldn't. Bad omen if our friend's program does it, but a simple checking-against-blunders function will solve it. The problem is not tactical calculation (that's what computers and programs are for) but, the length of variations (horizon) and the evaluation stick at their end. As I said before, and gave a link to an article, the evaluation function is the most important, as it helps trimming the exponential tree of variations and choosing the main lines to go, thus getting a larger "horizon"; moreover, the labels stick at the end of those "main lines" be more trustworthy. BTW, the idea of a secondary function to qualify the "trustworthyness" or stability of the evaluation looks great to me (or was it already done?). This way the ridiculous jumps in evaluation (-10.10 to White mates in 8 -BTW did you proof it?) If Sunny lost confidence in his program and uses it as a Kempelen's Turk (I saw you are playing some little money out there!), it means we are losing our time.
|
|
Date: 18 Sep 2007 02:40:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 17, 9:05 am, Mihai Suba <[email protected] > wrote: > All this pile-up controversy is nonsense, as the subject was to help > (or discourage) a chess programmer. > Hitler could have learned from Napoleon, thanks for the comparison > anyway. > 'When the writer asks "why not move X", > where move X is the move preferred by Fritz or Rybka, > they get really annoyed and have no substantive > answer; in essence, the answer amounts to "because > I am a GM, and I say so, nyaaaaaaaaa!" LOL' > It seems the right thing to do when the discussion turns into a veg- > ket-like: > "-Good morning, ma'm! > -Plums, dear, plum, plum!" > Ask Fritz and Rybka then, and apart from some lines, far less > deciphrable than a GM comment, Looking at Chess Life (maybe you get a far better magazine) where a writer asks the winner why he played X or does not like Fritz's moves: the replies are gibberish; jumbled lines of raw calculation with wrongheaded evaluations, and it's all a mess. Far from getting the good stuff from 2600+ grandmasters or from the anno-Fritzators, we are getting rubbish from writers who *are* asking both Fritz AND the GMs. As far as I can see, the sole exception was GM Suzan Polgar with Paul Truong, and they seem to have asked no one anything, thinking for themselves (except regarding /why/ BF played ...Bxh2 against GM Spassky). In one case the losing GM had a far better grasp of what was going on, which seems rather odd; he was more objective, but not quite as good at calculating variations perhaps. As for the decipher-ability of human commentary, my latest go-'round in this arena found some odd comments by 2300+ Taylor Kingston praising Fritz for what he interpreted as weaving a mating net; but my computer seemed to conclude that Fritz could not see a mate-in-six to save its own life; that it was floundering and the defense deserved some credit for the catch. I know that sometimes it will miss a better move, but never does it annouce mate-in-6 when there is no such mate. The claim that Fritz was weaving a net was simply debunked by its utter inability to see a forced mate at a *far lesser* depth than the one in the actual game. > you will get an answer which, in > essence, ammounts to: "because > I am Fritz or Rybka, and I say so, bu(from 'Bucarest')uuuuuuuu! Fritz always backs his evaluations with concrete analysis, even if it may be totally wrong. One way to check this is by slowly stepping forward along its main variation to see what changes. But the key is that if the contempt factor is zero, Fritz is 100% objective; he never tries harder for one side than for the other (and he never gives lines where one side moves thrice in a row). > Moreover I am distributed and provided 'AS IS' and with no warranties > of any kind, whether express or implied, and I can change my > materialistic mind from '-10.10' to 'White mates in 8' at any moment, > without previous advice, as you can proof with the miner's position." > Beware the laws in your country, though, before killing the > annotators. In mine, for instance, evidence given by Fritz or Rybka is > not valid! From what I have seen, you seem to be bashing the preferred tool of nearly every annotator in Chess Life. You can tell the one or two who don't use computers, by their occasional horrific tactical oversights, and by their ability to explain every "why" in simple English. > Many times, during important championships, corr. chess fans came, > with their folders of active games, and gathered master moves from one > or another. After IM Ghizdavu suggested a move, the other guy asked > "why?" That was not a mate-in-2 problem, how could one explain, in a > few words, his long years of learning and practice. No way, even to > himself! "Dorelius" found the answer: "Do you want to win the game? > than play this move! > PS the "miner's position" can be found inhttp://menssana.co.uk/eng/pgns.htm I think correspondence chess is much higher in quality than OTB chess, and the many articles I have read which portray openings theory as being shaped by OTB are either misguided or else the OTB-theory itself is suspect. Yet there are some works which have been cut down by the book reviewers; for instance the one by Hans Berliner; possibly he makes ludicrous, unsupportable claims. Still, if you cannot explain in words or in variations why you must be winning, the impression is that you *think* you are winning, just as most people think they are above average drivers, more intelligent than average, etc. And when your analysis gives multiple moves in-a-row for your side while pretending the opponent is frozen like a block of ice, it lends an impression of a lack of true objectivity. As you say, if you want to win, play this move; and as I say, if you want objectivity, good luck finding any amongst human chess players. : >D I tried to play your system against GetClub tonight, and things were a lot tougher than I had expected; I had nice pawns, as you said, and he had little in the way of counterplay, but managed to put up a tough defense and I lost my advantage some time after trading Queens; of course the Rook ending was easy because of numerous mistakes by the program, so I won anyway. What Sanny needs is technical help in implementing tactical search extensions, for when there are checks and captures. His program *still* does not foresee any coming mates on itself, so no matter how deep it may be looking selectively, it has a severe weakness which can easily be exploited, again and again. Just tonight, I checkmated the program on Beginner level, which means it did not foresee mate-in-one in time to resign. Recently, I have gotten the general impression that I am playing a human opponent at GetClub, not a computer. It's all booked up in some opening lines, and makes human-like moves while still overlooking obvious tactics on occasion -- tactics it never would have missed a few months ago. There are also a lot of disconnects during play. The one thing which argues against a human behind the curtain is stupid Rook moves; computers are notorious for these, or at least the very weak ones are. When Sanny comes here and says "try to beat the program NOW" I wonder if he is pulling off some trick, but every time it is still beatable. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 17 Sep 2007 14:05:53
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
All this pile-up controversy is nonsense, as the subject was to help (or discourage) a chess programmer. Hitler could have learned from Napoleon, thanks for the comparison anyway. 'When the writer asks "why not move X", where move X is the move preferred by Fritz or Rybka, they get really annoyed and have no substantive answer; in essence, the answer amounts to "because I am a GM, and I say so, nyaaaaaaaaa!" LOL' It seems the right thing to do when the discussion turns into a veg- ket-like: "-Good morning, ma'm! -Plums, dear, plum, plum!" Ask Fritz and Rybka then, and apart from some lines, far less deciphrable than a GM comment, you will get an answer which, in essence, ammounts to: "because I am Fritz or Rybka, and I say so, bu(from 'Bucarest')uuuuuuuu! Moreover I am distributed and provided 'AS IS' and with no warranties of any kind, whether express or implied, and I can change my materialistic mind from '-10.10' to 'White mates in 8' at any moment, without previous advice, as you can proof with the miner's position." Beware the laws in your country, though, before killing the annotators. In mine, for instance, evidence given by Fritz or Rybka is not valid! Many times, during important championships, corr. chess fans came, with their folders of active games, and gathered master moves from one or another. After IM Ghizdavu suggested a move, the other guy asked "why?" That was not a mate-in-2 problem, how could one explain, in a few words, his long years of learning and practice. No way, even to himself! "Dorelius" found the answer: "Do you want to win the game? than play this move! PS the "miner's position" can be found in http://menssana.co.uk/eng/pgns.htm
|
|
Date: 16 Sep 2007 19:43:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 16, 6:13 am, Mihai Suba <[email protected] > wrote: > help bot sais: > " Without any opening book, chess programs have glaring > weaknesses. One of the most obvious is a tendency to > shut in their own Queen by blocking the QB-pawn with the > Knight." > Correct, and finding other tendencies like that would improve any > program. Apparently, most programmers work around this by utilizing a by-rote openings book in which their program may not like the book moves, but will play it just the same. It's only because I do not have these books installed that I noticed this glaring weakness. > After quoting "1.e3! g6 2.f4 Nf6?!" > help bot sais: > "What is wrong with this move? Playing ...g6 in no way > obligates one to follow up *immediately* with Bg7." > In fact, I should place a "?" because allowing White to oppose bishops > on long diagonal is, for practical purposes, diminishing the mobility > of two pieces. The Knight on f6 and the Bishop on g7 will not want to move because of the exchange BxB; yet White is going to a lot of trouble over this by giving up his KB and by sliding his Queen the wrong way with Q-c1. IMO, your exclams are unwarranted, except perhaps as pointing out where you anticipated a potential glaring weakness of the program; for instance, no way is 1.e3 worthy of an exclam, objectively speaking. > The more so, if the game were against a human, because it's idiotic to > prevent "3.e4" after White played "1.e3" Yet this is the correct way to program a computer; you can't tell the computer "he won't do this, because it might make him feel stupid for an earlier move". The computer must remain objective, apart from any contempt factor that is; this factor is a tool for Rybka to avoid making too many draws, but I don't know if it helps or harms the program's results. > Later: > "3.b3! Bg7 4.Bb2 O-O 5.Nf3 Nc6?! 6.Bb5! > Why is this move so good? After ...Nb8 the Bishop > is misplaced, IMO." > Your O is correct, but the bishop won't go back to "f1" hence, 1 tempo True, one tempo -- with the understanding that it must be used for a retreat, and that Black may, or may not, attack the Bishop at his convenience and by any means he desires. In sum, if a tempo were worth a third-point, you would gain maybe one sixth point here; how does that compare to the best move other than B-b5, I wonder? > gain. > Later: > "a6? > Obviously, Rybka, just as a few of its predecessors > -- including GM Fischer -- is programmed to prefer > Bishops to Knights. To humans, this is almost > incomprehensible, yet we do it with Rooks vs. Bishops > and think nothing of it, calling it winning the exchange." > Classics called B vs N = "small exchange", but a rook is much better > than a bishop far more than a bishop vs. knight. Right; yet the program doesn't care if its calculations show a mathematical gain; it will win your Queen; it will win the exchange; it will win a pawn; it will take the minor exchange -- just so long as it sees inadequate compensation;and here it seems to value the Bishop over a Knight more so than it minds doubled pawns. As I recall, the program "M-Chess" held the Bishop as a half-point better than a Knight, and as a result it would often beat programs which played very aggressively, because they did not like having to retreat Bishops with a loss of time. Even so, there were a few games where this hyper-preference would become M-chess's undoing, and it would land with a bad Bishop in the ending. > Generrally a B is better than a N due to endgame pairing up: B+B > B > +N, B+B > N+N, R+B > R+N, R+B+B ~ R+R+N while only Q+N > Q+B. > With a damaged PAWN STRUCTURE, the superiority of the bishop is very > questionable. In one scenario, Black immediately pins the annoying White Knight with ...Bg4, and later chops it off. If White is very careful to avoid this, the Bishop is still an active piece. The trick is to read your mind and foresee the crushing f5 move. : >D My game had my pawn structure wrecked in the normal Nimzowitch type manner, but here things aren't quite so easy. I should probably mention that my opponent, some hundreds of rating points higher than me, got it in his head that the game was already decided, as he no doubt read in some book on this opening; things weren't quite that simple though, because I "knew" that I was in big trouble while he did not realize that I am *very* experienced in having bad positions! > Later: > "7.Bxc6 dxc6? between +/- and +-. > Come on now; just because you won does not > mean that you were winning all the way back to > here. White has the e5 square, but Black has the > d-file, a pair of Bishops, and no other glaring > weakness to speak of. I think Rybka may have > erred later on to lose this." > Not winning (the symbols say between clearly and much better) and > Ribka hardly errs "later on". Why are we not allowed to see the rest of the game then? Are we to assume that if you say no mistakes were made, that you are infallible or something? : >D In many annotated games in Chess Life, even the winner did not seem to comprehend what was going on in complex middle games, judging by their own comments. When the writer asks "why not move X", where move X is the move preferred by Fritz or Rybka, they get really annoyed and have no substantive answer; in essence, the answer amounts to "because I am a GM, and I say so, nyaaaaaaaaa!" LOL > Most times "she" crushes me from > theoretical positions, irrespective of evaluation, I replayed Rybka's games against several programs and her play was fantastic, except against ZapChess. In the opening, Rybka generally came out on top, and in the middle game, she seemed to always have the safer King -- except when she had grabbed material which was normally converted to a win after some impressive defensive gymnastics. > "She" erred quite a > lot in concept by now and was uncapable to understand the position and > elaborate a long term plan of defence. Generally, at normal time controls a program will not anticipate a long-range attack but instead will accidentally thwart it by very active piece play in another sector. The stronger the program, the more likely this counter play will come fast and hard enough to thwart the human's "plan". > Later: > "White's plan is O-O, Qc1 > (development) d3, e4 (centre) Nbd2, Nc4 and possibly Ne3 (improving > general energy, dynamic potential I call it) and finally f5! Even > her diabolic calculation could not overcome the strategical defects > of the position, that is, pawn structure and relative piece > positioning. > Okay, so let's see how you did all that while Rybka > just twiddled her thumbs. > Sorry, I neither keep evidence, nor remember all games against > programs, do you? No. But most of my games are recorded by the Web site on which they are played. I have games at GetClub, RedHotPawn (my losses here /could/ be to computers, but certainly none of my wins were), and besides which I am just a weak player, so I only recall bits and pieces of my games. ; >D I believe my Fritz program automatically records my games against it, whether I want it to or not (I don't like having so many quick losses recorded). I have not played Rybka, and until I can figure out how to remove her Queen, I don't see much point. It goes without saying that without her Queen, the program would not only be deprived of her openings book, but also exhibit the same sort of problems seen in the odds match against GM Benjamin: 1.e3 (frees the program's Bishop) ...e6 (frees my Bishop and *also my Queen*, ha ha!). > I only recall that, in other games of the session, she answered 1.e3 > e5 2.d4 e4 which is also dubious, but not refutable. Please notify John Watson; even with move in hand, the White side of the French Defense is considered irrefutable! Take that, stubborn French players. > Later: > "BTW, somewhere in here > the move ...Bg4 can pin the e5-loving Knight on f3: a > real downer, if you plan on attacking with minor pieces." > The idea to get rid of a piece which can easily become a "big pawn" or > a "stone" is not bad but requires understanding and admitting > inferiority (contradicts the 2B stuff mentioned before) To the contrary, rather than admitting that *correct* play inevitably leads to a bad QB, I am simply taking your assertion that you have a crushing attack and showing one small step by which it might be taken back a peg, slowed down. Of course, you can still claim to have an unstoppable heavy piece assault in the works, but if you allow the pin ...Bg4, your minors are cut in number by half. > After, say: 8.O-O Bg4 9.Qc1 Bxf3 10.Rxf3 White still has the same plan > in centre and kingside, "f5" is in the air and the rook on f3,g3,h3 is > helpful. I don't see Black's counterplay This is precisely what Hitler said when he invaded Russia! (Who suspected that mud could attack his tanks? That winter could cripple his troops?) In my experience (so far), only ZapChess has been able to consistently "see" the dangers presented by Rybka. And the odd thing is that Rybka has more than one possible setting, so maybe one of the more tactical ones would do better against Zap. > and the plan with "...f5" > described below is more questionable (now White has superiority on > both black and white squares) Yeah, but you give White several free moves and assume that Black will do nothing. Maybe the time control was quick and Rybka did nothing; that just shows you nixed tricky tactics and got a strategical win through the eye of the needle; it does not prove that you are objectively winning after Bxc6. In fact, it appears to indicate that this is one of those types of positions where computers are relatively weak. > Than: > "A good human player would have find the toughest defence > and possibly counterplay: "Ne8, f5 (freezing White's centre, improving > king's safety) c5, b5, c4 (white squares). > > That is an excellent description of how I handled > this as Black against a superior player many years > ago He lost due to overconfidence; recklessness, > even though my position was a bit worse than this > one." > I begin to understand you! > Than: > "I would reformulate help > bot's, 'The reason is simply that even if you got your program > to play like a grandmaster in pawn-handling, its results > would barely budge since tactics are 90+% of the game.' changing > 'tactics' by 'tactics + evaluation+long term planning' Fischer beat > Spassky because he was stronger in most technical aspects (opening > preparation, calculation speed, endgame, shape and psichology - > including motivation, will power, boldness, etc.) but Spassky had more > IDEAS. > > That was just one match. Before the 1972 match, GM > Spassky had never lost even a single game to GM Fischer! > Psychology seems to have been a key player." > Right, except from a few games e.g, one 'poisoned pawn' (Nb1!) and two > Sicilians (all in the match), Spassky always got worse after the > opening, as Fisher's preparation was outstanding (although he was the > last winner of "World's INDIVIDUAL Chess Championship"). GM Karpov (among others) has attributed this to GM Spassky's extreme laziness. In fact, he also claims to have beaten reigning champion Spassky in some training games just before the 1972 match. I never saw any of those games, either; how did GM Spassky lose? Did they work on "un-busting" the King's Gambit, I wonder? > Before the > match, Spassky scored 2,5-0,5 from 3 lost positions. About 6 weeks ago > I was lucky enough to be in his company for a few days (he and > Vaganian were invited in Romania, as honour directors of Romgaz Eforie > Open). His favourite motto is Tartakover's: "Combination is a victory > of spirit against matter". At my level, combination is what inevitably happens when I was winning, but got into time pressure. "I had him", "he got lucky", and my favorite, "I was easily winning before this blunder, where I gave you the game". Of course, next time we come back and do the same sort of thing again. > Than: > "There are several books which deal with how to handle > the pawns in a specific opening, and some which deal > with pawn handling in general, but at the level I have > seen at GetClub, this is largely irrelevant. Example: the > program cannot see a mate-in-two coming, and instead > of averting it walks right into it. I am talking about a game > against the Advance level -- the slowest, and strongest > level there is. This clearly indicates that any work on > pawn handling will for the most part be wasted in so far > as results go. > -- help bot- " > That's right, the greater the victory if we can help the author to > improve these results. > We must encourage him to improve his own chess erudition and wisdom, > before trying to translate them to the machine. > Good luck again in your games and/or programming! According to his own account, Sanny has a "team" of programmers and does not himself write the code. Most likely, these folks also write the HTML for his Web site and it, too, is buggy. But the program has improved in some areas, and at times can play good moves for quite a stretch. It is because of these good moves in complex positions that I find it so ludicrous that his program cannot avert a mate-in-two. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 16 Sep 2007 18:02:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 15, 2:26 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > I saw you played 4 games yesterday all with beginner Level, You win 3 > Games and one was Drawn. > > I Challenge you, that you will not be able to beat Easy and Normal > Levels as they will play very strong moves. Why play with weak Level. > If you want tough competition play with Easy & Normal Levels. > > They will beat you 2/4 times. (As per my Calculations) That is an interesting formula. By my calculations, a mouse error whereby I accidentally promote a pawn to Knight and thus draw a won game simply because the button for "Knight" is right below the one for "Queen" and I am in blitz mode, is very, very rare; in fact, I estimate that it may not happen again until after the reappearance of Halley's comet! LOL -- help bot
|
|
Date: 16 Sep 2007 11:13:02
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
help bot sais: " Without any opening book, chess programs have glaring weaknesses. One of the most obvious is a tendency to shut in their own Queen by blocking the QB-pawn with the Knight." Correct, and finding other tendencies like that would improve any program. After quoting "1.e3! g6 2.f4 Nf6?!" help bot sais: "What is wrong with this move? Playing ...g6 in no way obligates one to follow up *immediately* with Bg7." In fact, I should place a "?" because allowing White to oppose bishops on long diagonal is, for practical purposes, diminishing the mobility of two pieces. The more so, if the game were against a human, because it's idiotic to prevent "3.e4" after White played "1.e3" Later: "3.b3! Bg7 4.Bb2 O-O 5.Nf3 Nc6?! 6.Bb5! Why is this move so good? After ...Nb8 the Bishop is misplaced, IMO." Your O is correct, but the bishop won't go back to "f1" hence, 1 tempo gain. Later: "a6? Obviously, Rybka, just as a few of its predecessors -- including GM Fischer -- is programmed to prefer Bishops to Knights. To humans, this is almost incomprehensible, yet we do it with Rooks vs. Bishops and think nothing of it, calling it winning the exchange." Classics called B vs N = "small exchange", but a rook is much better than a bishop far more than a bishop vs. knight. Generrally a B is better than a N due to endgame pairing up: B+B > B +N, B+B > N+N, R+B > R+N, R+B+B ~ R+R+N while only Q+N > Q+B. With a damaged PAWN STRUCTURE, the superiority of the bishop is very questionable. Later: "7.Bxc6 dxc6? between +/- and +-. Come on now; just because you won does not mean that you were winning all the way back to here. White has the e5 square, but Black has the d-file, a pair of Bishops, and no other glaring weakness to speak of. I think Rybka may have erred later on to lose this." Not winning (the symbols say between clearly and much better) and Ribka hardly errs "later on". Most times "she" crushes me from theoretical positions, irrespective of evaluation, "She" erred quite a lot in concept by now and was uncapable to understand the position and elaborate a long term plan of defence. Later: "White's plan is O-O, Qc1 (development) d3, e4 (centre) Nbd2, Nc4 and possibly Ne3 (improving general energy, dynamic potential I call it) and finally f5! Even her diabolic calculation could not overcome the strategical defects of the position, that is, pawn structure and relative piece positioning. Okay, so let's see how you did all that while Rybka just twiddled her thumbs. Sorry, I neither keep evidence, nor remember all games against programs, do you? I only recall that, in other games of the session, she answered 1.e3 e5 2.d4 e4 which is also dubious, but not refutable. Later: "BTW, somewhere in here the move ...Bg4 can pin the e5-loving Knight on f3: a real downer, if you plan on attacking with minor pieces." The idea to get rid of a piece which can easily become a "big pawn" or a "stone" is not bad but requires understanding and admitting inferiority (contradicts the 2B stuff mentioned before) After, say: 8.O-O Bg4 9.Qc1 Bxf3 10.Rxf3 White still has the same plan in centre and kingside, "f5" is in the air and the rook on f3,g3,h3 is helpful. I don't see Black's counterplay and the plan with "...f5" described below is more questionable (now White has superiority on both black and white squares) Than: "A good human player would have find the toughest defence and possibly counterplay: "Ne8, f5 (freezing White's centre, improving king's safety) c5, b5, c4 (white squares). That is an excellent description of how I handled this as Black against a superior player many years ago He lost due to overconfidence; recklessness, even though my position was a bit worse than this one." I begin to understand you! Than: "I would reformulate help bot's, 'The reason is simply that even if you got your program to play like a grandmaster in pawn-handling, its results would barely budge since tactics are 90+% of the game.' changing 'tactics' by 'tactics + evaluation+long term planning' Fischer beat Spassky because he was stronger in most technical aspects (opening preparation, calculation speed, endgame, shape and psichology - including motivation, will power, boldness, etc.) but Spassky had more IDEAS. That was just one match. Before the 1972 match, GM Spassky had never lost even a single game to GM Fischer! Psychology seems to have been a key player." Right, except from a few games e.g, one 'poisoned pawn' (Nb1!) and two Sicilians (all in the match), Spassky always got worse after the opening, as Fisher's preparation was outstanding (although he was the last winner of "World's INDIVIDUAL Chess Championship"). Before the match, Spassky scored 2,5-0,5 from 3 lost positions. About 6 weeks ago I was lucky enough to be in his company for a few days (he and Vaganian were invited in Romania, as honour directors of Romgaz Eforie Open). His favourite motto is Tartakover's: "Combination is a victory of spirit against matter". Than: "There are several books which deal with how to handle the pawns in a specific opening, and some which deal with pawn handling in general, but at the level I have seen at GetClub, this is largely irrelevant. Example: the program cannot see a mate-in-two coming, and instead of averting it walks right into it. I am talking about a game against the Advance level -- the slowest, and strongest level there is. This clearly indicates that any work on pawn handling will for the most part be wasted in so far as results go. -- help bot- " That's right, the greater the victory if we can help the author to improve these results. We must encourage him to improve his own chess erudition and wisdom, before trying to translate them to the machine. Good luck again in your games and/or programming!
|
|
Date: 15 Sep 2007 18:27:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 15, 8:15 am, Mihai Suba <[email protected] > wrote: > Dear friends, > Allow me to re-quote from another chess forum: > "Life is painting a picture, not doing a sum" > Same happens to chess. > I remember "Deep Thought" in "World Open", Philadelphia 1987 > When it announced "mate in 19" it came as a thunder and all > professional players felt the threat! > A couple of years later I had a discussion with Dr. Nunn about the > matter. I hold that the program was very strong tactically and very > weak strategically. (based on its win with Black against Larsen and > its loss with White against Browne). He hold that, at some point, the > tactical strength will be so high that strategy would not matter or be > confounded with it. I could not believe that, during my life, a > program would beat the best human player. Our attitude was somehow > corresponding to our "playing styles", mine more logical (in my view), > based on "strategic intuition" and his (also in my view) more > gambling, based on "tactical intuition". > Who was right? > No one! > Chess has 4 very important elements: material, space, time and > threats. (I excluded psichology and shape factors on purpose). > Programs are biassed more on 1 and 4, while a "positional" human GM on > 2 and 3. > The chess strength is to weight these elemens and produce an > "evaluation". It is not true that programs don't know strategy. Best > programs have hundred of mini-rules to correct the brute "material > count" (e.g, "more exposed king") They found many of these rules > statistically, by playing millions of games against each other. They > "trim" the tree of variations with some evaluation. > Programs have huge memory (which is illegal) and adapted opening books > (also illegal) and yet, big strategy lapses. Here is the opening of > one in a few games I won against Rybka (the latter without opening > book) Without any opening book, chess programs have glaring weaknesses. One of the most obvious is a tendency to shut in their own Queen by blocking the QB-pawn with the Knight. > : 1.e3! g6 2.f4 Nf6?! What is wrong with this move? Playing ...g6 in no way obligates one to follow up *immediately* with Bg7. > 3.b3! Bg7 4.Bb2 O-O 5.Nf3 Nc6?! 6.Bb5! Why is this move so good? After ...Nb8 the Bishop is misplaced, IMO. > a6? Obviously, Rybka, just as a few of its predecessors -- including GM Fischer -- is programmed to prefer Bishops to Knights. To humans, this is almost incomprehensible, yet we do it with Rooks vs. Bishops and think nothing of it, calling it winning the exchange. > 7.Bxc6 dxc6? between +/- and +-. Come on now; just because you won does not mean that you were winning all the way back to here. White has the e5 square, but Black has the d-file, a pair of Bishops, and no other glaring weakness to speak of. I think Rybka may have erred later on to lose this. > White's plan is "O-O, Qc1 > (development) d3, e4 (centre) Nbd2, Nc4 and possibly Ne3 (improving > general energy, dynamic potential I call it) and finally f5! Even > "her" diabolic calculation could not overcome the strategical defects > of the position, that is, pawn structure and relative piece > positioning. Okay, so let's see how you did all that while Rybka just twiddled her thumbs. BTW, somewhere in here the move ...Bg4 can pin the e5-loving Knight on f3: a real downer, if you plan on attacking with minor pieces. > A good human player would have find the toughest defence > and possibly counterplay: "Ne8, f5 (freezing White's centre, improving > king's safety) c5, b5, c4 (white squares). That is an excellent description of how I handled this as Black against a superior player many years ago He lost due to overconfidence; recklessness, even though my position was a bit worse than this one. > I would reformulate help > bot's, 'The reason is simply that even if you got your program > to "play like a grandmaster" in pawn-handling, its results > would barely budge since tactics are 90+% of the game.' changing > 'tactics' by 'tactics + evaluation+long term planning' Fischer beat > Spassky because he was stronger in most technical aspects (opening > preparation, calculation speed, endgame, shape and psichology - > including motivation, will power, boldness, etc.) but Spassky had more > IDEAS. That was just one match. Before the 1972 match, GM Spassky had never lost even a single game to GM Fischer! Psychology seems to have been a key player. > Rules are good, provided you look at them critically (with > exceptions feedback). Best (including for our theme - pawn structure) > is to teach your program patterns (don't ask me how). > That's all by now, I need some coffee! > Good luck in your games and/or programming! There are several books which deal with how to handle the pawns in a specific opening, and some which deal with pawn handling in general, but at the level I have seen at GetClub, this is largely irrelevant. Example: the program cannot see a mate-in-two coming, and instead of averting it walks right into it. I am talking about a game against the Advance level -- the slowest, and strongest level there is. This clearly indicates that any work on pawn handling will for the most part be wasted in so far as results go. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 15 Sep 2007 09:46:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 14, 2:34 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > Till now GetClub Chess only avoid double pawn formation and isolated > pawns. > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > What type of Pawn structures are good and what type of pawn structure > are bad? > If you want to learn the answer to this question, I recommend that you buy a book called "Pawn Power in Chess" by Hans Kmoch. http://www.amazon.com/Pawn-Power-Chess-Hans-Kmoch/dp/0486264866/ You can hardly expect members of this group to give you beginner's lessons. Sam Sloan
|
|
Date: 15 Sep 2007 06:48:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 15, 12:41 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > Thats good. I find whenever a pawn is moved a hole will always > generated on its side. Then how to tell wich hole is bigger danerous > and which hole can be ignored? I don't know of any Web sites that cover this, but there may well be many. In general, you have to use judgment to determine if a feature such as a weak square or doubled pawns can be exploited by the opponent, or if it is irrelevant or more than compensated for by what is gained in exchange. The same thing applies in determining whether or not to exchange pieces, castle on opposite sides, and so forth. Just as an example, my game where I sac'ed a Rook for a far-advanced passed pawn and a potential attack on Black's King (this game was discussed earlier) had me giving up a lot of material, and the program should have gone into defense mode, not grabbing the h-pawn as if it were a "normal" position where material was key to the outcome. All that mattered was, yes/no: will I get to its King? So the correct approach was to defend its King, and *quickly*. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 15 Sep 2007 13:15:18
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 14, 8:34 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > Till now GetClub Chess only avoid double pawn formation and isolated > pawns. > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > What type of Pawn structures are good and what type of pawn structure > are bad? > > 1. If Pawns are on same rows not protecting each other {in front of > King}. (Is it good) > King has no place to move??? > > 2. All pawns protecting other making a long diagonal Chain. (Is it > good) > A pawn Exchange can bring it down to Isolated Pawns??? > > 3. Two pawns on side protecting middle pawn. (Is it good) > There is a hole in Center??? > > How to find weak spots? Whenever a Pawn is played we have toi leave a > diagonal hole for bishop or a place for opponent Knight. > > Can you tell me how to tell which pawn structure is better. > > I went through lots of sites to know about Pawn Formations but could > not find any concrete example. > > How to tell whether a Pawn formation is weak or strong? > > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Good question, and obviously asked to improve a chess playing program. By now, the most relevant answer came from "help bot": "If I were you, I would ignore finesse work regarding pawn structures and focus priily on improving tactics. The reason is simply that even if you got your program to "play like a grandmaster" in pawn-handling, its results would barely budge since tactics are 90+% of the game. Many times I have replayed some game in Fritz, and no matter what the pawn structure was, no matter who had the superior minor piece, no matter who controlled the center, no matter which side was positionally better, someone blundered and Fritz instantly spotted the tactical refutation -- game over. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= =AD---- But if you must know, here are a few ideas... Good: a) pawns connected to one another (a2, b2, c2) b) pawns which control the center (d4, e4, c4, f4) c) pawns which are passed d) pawns as a shield for the King (f2, g2, h2, O-O) Bad: a) isolated pawns (a2, no same-color pawn on b-file) b) doubled pawns (a2, a3) c) pawn distortion (a2, b5, c2) d) holes in pawn formation (c5, d4, e5, empty hole at d5) e) home pawns (f3, g4, h4, O-O) which have advanced Obviously, many of these weaknesses are irrelevant if there is no way for the opponent to exploit them; for instance, if you have a K & Q and tripled, isolated rook pawns and you opponent has just a King, you may well promote each of your "bad" pawns to Queens, proving that even a bad pawn makes for a decent Queen (while no Queen could ever hope to be even an isolated pawn). -- help bot " Dear friends, Allow me to re-quote from another chess forum: "Life is painting a picture, not doing a sum" Same happens to chess. I remember "Deep Thought" in "World Open", Philadelphia 1987 When it announced "mate in 19" it came as a thunder and all professional players felt the threat! A couple of years later I had a discussion with Dr. Nunn about the matter. I hold that the program was very strong tactically and very weak strategically. (based on its win with Black against Larsen and its loss with White against Browne). He hold that, at some point, the tactical strength will be so high that strategy would not matter or be confounded with it. I could not believe that, during my life, a program would beat the best human player. Our attitude was somehow corresponding to our "playing styles", mine more logical (in my view), based on "strategic intuition" and his (also in my view) more gambling, based on "tactical intuition". Who was right? No one! Chess has 4 very important elements: material, space, time and threats. (I excluded psichology and shape factors on purpose). Programs are biassed more on 1 and 4, while a "positional" human GM on 2 and 3. The chess strength is to weight these elemens and produce an "evaluation". It is not true that programs don't know strategy. Best programs have hundred of mini-rules to correct the brute "material count" (e.g, "more exposed king") They found many of these rules statistically, by playing millions of games against each other. They "trim" the tree of variations with some evaluation. Programs have huge memory (which is illegal) and adapted opening books (also illegal) and yet, big strategy lapses. Here is the opening of one in a few games I won against Rybka (the latter without opening book) : 1.e3! g6 2.f4 Nf6?! 3.b3! Bg7 4.Bb2 O-O 5.Nf3 Nc6?! 6.Bb5! a6? 7=2EBxc6 dxc6? between +/- and +-. White's plan is "O-O, Qc1 (development) d3, e4 (centre) Nbd2, Nc4 and possibly Ne3 (improving general energy, dynamic potential I call it) and finally f5! Even "her" diabolic calculation could not overcome the strategical defects of the position, that is, pawn structure and relative piece positioning. A good human player would have find the toughest defence and possibly counterplay: "Ne8, f5 (freezing White's centre, improving king's safety) c5, b5, c4 (white squares). I would reformulate help bot's, 'The reason is simply that even if you got your program to "play like a grandmaster" in pawn-handling, its results would barely budge since tactics are 90+% of the game.' changing 'tactics' by 'tactics + evaluation+long term planning' Fischer beat Spassky because he was stronger in most technical aspects (opening preparation, calculation speed, endgame, shape and psichology - including motivation, will power, boldness, etc.) but Spassky had more IDEAS. Rules are good, provided you look at them critically (with exceptions feedback). Best (including for our theme - pawn structure) is to teach your program patterns (don't ask me how). That's all by now, I need some coffee! Good luck in your games and/or programming!
|
|
Date: 15 Sep 2007 00:26:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
I saw you played 4 games yesterday all with beginner Level, You win 3 Games and one was Drawn. I Challenge you, that you will not be able to beat Easy and Normal Levels as they will play very strong moves. Why play with weak Level. If you want tough competition play with Easy & Normal Levels. They will beat you 2/4 times. (As per my Calculations) Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 2007 22:41:58
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 15, 2:56 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Sep 14, 1:34 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Till now GetClub Chess only avoid double pawn formation and isolated > > pawns. > > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > > What type of Pawn structures are good and what type of pawn structure > > are bad? > > > 1. If Pawns are on same rows not protecting each other {in front of > > King}. (Is it good) > > King has no place to move??? > > > 2. All pawns protecting other making a long diagonal Chain. (Is it > > good) > > A pawn Exchange can bring it down to Isolated Pawns??? > > > 3. Two pawns on side protecting middle pawn. (Is it good) > > There is a hole in Center??? > > > How to find weak spots? Whenever a Pawn is played we have toi leave a > > diagonal hole for bishop or a place for opponent Knight. > > > Can you tell me how to tell which pawn structure is better. > > > I went through lots of sites to know about Pawn Formations but could > > not find any concrete example. > > > How to tell whether a Pawn formation is weak or strong? > > If I were you, I would ignore finesse work regarding pawn > structures and focus priily on improving tactics. > > The reason is simply that even if you got your program > to "play like a grandmaster" in pawn-handling, its results > would barely budge since tactics are 90+% of the game. > > Many times I have replayed some game in Fritz, and > no matter what the pawn structure was, no matter who > had the superior minor piece, no matter who controlled > the center, no matter which side was positionally > better, someone blundered and Fritz instantly spotted > the tactical refutation -- game over. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --=AD---- > > But if you must know, here are a few ideas... > > Good: > > a) pawns connected to one another (a2, b2, c2) > > b) pawns which control the center (d4, e4, c4, f4) > > c) pawns which are passed > > d) pawns as a shield for the King (f2, g2, h2, O-O) > > Bad: > > a) isolated pawns (a2, no same-color pawn on b-file) > > b) doubled pawns (a2, a3) > > c) pawn distortion (a2, b5, c2) > > d) holes in pawn formation (c5, d4, e5, empty hole at d5) > > e) home pawns (f3, g4, h4, O-O) which have advanced > > Obviously, many of these weaknesses are irrelevant if > there is no way for the opponent to exploit them; for > instance, if you have a K & Q and tripled, isolated rook > pawns and you opponent has just a King, you may well > promote each of your "bad" pawns to Queens, proving > that even a bad pawn makes for a decent Queen (while > no Queen could ever hope to be even an isolated pawn). > > -- help bot- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thats good. I find whenever a pawn is moved a hole will always generated on its side. Then how to tell wich hole is bigger danerous and which hole can be ignored? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:56:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 14, 1:34 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > Till now GetClub Chess only avoid double pawn formation and isolated > pawns. > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > What type of Pawn structures are good and what type of pawn structure > are bad? > > 1. If Pawns are on same rows not protecting each other {in front of > King}. (Is it good) > King has no place to move??? > > 2. All pawns protecting other making a long diagonal Chain. (Is it > good) > A pawn Exchange can bring it down to Isolated Pawns??? > > 3. Two pawns on side protecting middle pawn. (Is it good) > There is a hole in Center??? > > How to find weak spots? Whenever a Pawn is played we have toi leave a > diagonal hole for bishop or a place for opponent Knight. > > Can you tell me how to tell which pawn structure is better. > > I went through lots of sites to know about Pawn Formations but could > not find any concrete example. > > How to tell whether a Pawn formation is weak or strong? If I were you, I would ignore finesse work regarding pawn structures and focus priily on improving tactics. The reason is simply that even if you got your program to "play like a grandmaster" in pawn-handling, its results would barely budge since tactics are 90+% of the game. Many times I have replayed some game in Fritz, and no matter what the pawn structure was, no matter who had the superior minor piece, no matter who controlled the center, no matter which side was positionally better, someone blundered and Fritz instantly spotted the tactical refutation -- game over. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But if you must know, here are a few ideas... Good: a) pawns connected to one another (a2, b2, c2) b) pawns which control the center (d4, e4, c4, f4) c) pawns which are passed d) pawns as a shield for the King (f2, g2, h2, O-O) Bad: a) isolated pawns (a2, no same-color pawn on b-file) b) doubled pawns (a2, a3) c) pawn distortion (a2, b5, c2) d) holes in pawn formation (c5, d4, e5, empty hole at d5) e) home pawns (f3, g4, h4, O-O) which have advanced Obviously, many of these weaknesses are irrelevant if there is no way for the opponent to exploit them; for instance, if you have a K & Q and tripled, isolated rook pawns and you opponent has just a King, you may well promote each of your "bad" pawns to Queens, proving that even a bad pawn makes for a decent Queen (while no Queen could ever hope to be even an isolated pawn). -- help bot
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 2007 19:08:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 14, 8:33 am, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected] > wrote: > I for one haven't written a chess engine [yet], so I can't say how > much work it would be to even compete with crafty [which has full source > available ... thanks professor!], which is an excellent engine but nowhere > near the top. I haven't written a chess engine yet either, but I've worked with the code for one, and to write an engine that plays really well is not so easy, as Sanny and company are finding out. (Writing one that plays so-so is much easier, of course, though still by no means trivial.) Crafty is rated as one of the best open-source engines. It is not as good as commercial engines such as Rybka or Fritz and some others, but it is very strong and very good. I doubt Sanny will ever come close to Crafty's high standard. But to make my real point: I have nothing against an engine that plays at a certain level and is forthright about it. There are engines that play in the 2000 ELO range and they self-profess to be "reasonably strong" or words to that effect (certainly well above my level!). But they don't claim to be championship material. Sanny's self-made ELO estimates seem vastly inflated. He needs to run a real test and publish the correct figures, whatever they might turn out to be.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 21:53:19
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
In rec.games.chess.computer [email protected] <[email protected] > wrote: > > Crafty is rated as one of the best open-source engines. It is not as > good as commercial engines such as Rybka or Fritz and some others, but > it is very strong and very good. I doubt Sanny will ever come close > to Crafty's high standard. > Trust me, I know. I would never try to claim to the contrary and have a lot of respect for Dr. Hyatt (sp?). > But to make my real point: I have nothing against an engine that plays > at a certain level and is forthright about it. There are engines that > play in the 2000 ELO range and they self-profess to be "reasonably > strong" or words to that effect (certainly well above my level!). But > they don't claim to be championship material. Sanny's self-made ELO > estimates seem vastly inflated. He needs to run a real test and > publish the correct figures, whatever they might turn out to be. > He is arbitrary for sure, and he is inconsistant. But, he does offer his site for free, so I guess that is his right, as is giving him flak the right of members of this group. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 2007 08:25:58
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 14, 10:33 am, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected] > wrote: > In rec.games.chess.computer [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > You have to give him credit if he isn't charging you. It might not be a great > site, and it might not be the best, but if it is free, it is tough to > complain. Your own motto seems to belie that sentiment, Tom: > We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the > machinations of the wicked. If the bungling of the incompetent is to be feared, then the appropriate reaction to Sanny might be abject terror! ;-)
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 17:28:48
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
In rec.games.chess.computer Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > > Your own motto seems to belie that sentiment, Tom: > >> We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the >> machinations of the wicked. > > If the bungling of the incompetent is to be feared, then the > appropriate reaction to Sanny might be abject terror! ;-) > Hehe ... I forgot about that. Good point :-) -- Thomas T. Veldhouse We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:07:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
On Sep 14, 1:50 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > > How to tell whether a Pawn formation is weak or strong? > > > Bye > > Sanny > > Today GetClub Chess played very good moves and Draw game With one of > the Worlds best Chess Program Jester. Where did you get this incredible idea that Jester is up there with Rybka et al? > > Below is the Game Played at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > Jester: White > GetClub Black (Beginner Level) > (game deleted) Even a lowly class player such as I can see that this game is pure baloney with poor play to say the least. > > Game Draw.!!! with Black Pieces. Draw by repetition after 19 moves in a bad game? And you are proud of this? > So It gives me relief the Program is now playing very good moves. You should not be relieved too early. > Yesterday I said of shutting my Program So far you haven't made a lot of progress, and there are many, many superior options. Surely you should spend your time and money on more useful things. > Its after long hard work the sucess came. Everyone can be proud of success after hard work ... but you're unfortunately not there yet.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 14:33:30
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
In rec.games.chess.computer [email protected] <[email protected] > wrote: > > So far you haven't made a lot of progress, and there are many, many > superior options. Surely you should spend your time and money on more > useful things. > >> Its after long hard work the sucess came. > > Everyone can be proud of success after hard work ... but you're > unfortunately not there yet. > You have to give him credit if he isn't charging you. It might not be a great site, and it might not be the best, but if it is free, it is tough to complain. I for one haven't written a chess engine [yet], so I can't say how much work it would be to even compete with crafty [which has full source available ... thanks professor!], which is an excellent engine but nowhere near the top. I would hope that he can take suggestions on how to improve his process [I am not to sure there is a team working behind him on this] and put out a better product, as it seems like he would like to someday charge for it. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 2007 01:24:29
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
> Its after long hard work the sucess came. And I am very happy about > it. > > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Here is the new ratings I give to GetClub Chess. +50 to each. Beginner: 1750 =========Nomorechess in Blitz Mode Easy: 1850 ============Nomorechess in Serious Mode Nornal: 1950============Zebediah in Blitz Mode Master: 2050============Zebediah in Serious Mode So Strong Players what do you say? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 2007 00:50:20
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
> How to tell whether a Pawn formation is weak or strong? > > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Today GetClub Chess played very good moves and Draw game With one of the Worlds best Chess Program Jester. Below is the Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Jester: White GetClub Black (Beginner Level) Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM9355&game=Chess 1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.Nb1-c3 Ng8-f6 3.g2-g3 Nb8-c6 4.Ng1-f3 Bf8-b4 5.Bf1-b5 Bb4xc3 6.d2xc3 Ke8-g8 7.Bc1-g5 h7-h6 8.Bg5xf6 Qd8xf6 9.Ke1-g1 Nc6-d8 10.h2-h4 c7-c5 11.Bb5-e2 Nd8-c6 12.Qd1-d5 d7-d6 13.Rf1-d1 Rf8-d8 14.Qd5-d3 Bc8-h3 15.Qd3-e3 Ra8-b8 16.a2-a3 Bh3-e6 17.Rd1-d2 Be6-h3 18.Rd2-d1 Bh3-e6 19.Rd1-d2 ------------- Game Draw.!!! with Black Pieces. Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM9355&game=Chess So It gives me relief the Program is now playing very good moves. Yesterday I said of shutting my Program if it do not improve in 4 days. And today it satisfied me so now I can continue with GetClub Chess Game without shutting it forever. Its after long hard work the sucess came. And I am very happy about it. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2007 11:03:47
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Can you tell me about pawn structure?
|
Sanny wrote: >> How to tell whether a Pawn formation is weak or strong? >> >> Bye >> Sanny >> >> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > Today GetClub Chess played very good moves and Draw game With one of > the Worlds best Chess Program Jester. > > Below is the Game Played at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > Jester: White > GetClub Black (Beginner Level) > > Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM9355&game=Chess > > 1.e2-e4 e7-e5 > 2.Nb1-c3 Ng8-f6 > 3.g2-g3 Nb8-c6 > 4.Ng1-f3 Bf8-b4 > 5.Bf1-b5 Bb4xc3 > 6.d2xc3 Ke8-g8 > 7.Bc1-g5 h7-h6 > 8.Bg5xf6 Qd8xf6 > 9.Ke1-g1 Nc6-d8 > 10.h2-h4 c7-c5 > 11.Bb5-e2 Nd8-c6 > 12.Qd1-d5 d7-d6 > 13.Rf1-d1 Rf8-d8 > 14.Qd5-d3 Bc8-h3 > 15.Qd3-e3 Ra8-b8 > 16.a2-a3 Bh3-e6 > 17.Rd1-d2 Be6-h3 > 18.Rd2-d1 Bh3-e6 > 19.Rd1-d2 ------------- > > Game Draw.!!! with Black Pieces. > > Recorded Game: http://www.getclub.com/playgame.php?id=DM9355&game=Chess > > So It gives me relief the Program is now playing very good moves. Here's a hint: the above are *not* "very good moves". > > Yesterday I said of shutting my Program if it do not improve in 4 > days. And today it satisfied me so now I can continue with GetClub > Chess Game without shutting it forever. > > Its after long hard work the sucess came. And I am very happy about > it. > > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html > > -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
|