| |
Main
Date: 11 Oct 2005 06:19:58
From: tdiedwards
Subject: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
David Richerby Wrote:
> tdiedwards [email protected]
> wrote:[color=blue][i]
>
>
> You are of course right. Usually, a sacrifice to force the king to mov
> would be part of a combination. But, let's say a temporarily distracte
> opponent allowed an unusual opening where there was an option t
> sacrifice something to force a king move (with no calculable tactica
> repercussions) - how much would you sacrifice
--
tdiedwards
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2005 06:00:35
From: anthony mee
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
"tdiedwards" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> David Richerby Wrote:
>> tdiedwards [email protected]
>> wrote:[color=blue][i]
>>
>>
>> You are of course right. Usually, a sacrifice to force the king to move
>> would be part of a combination. But, let's say a temporarily distracted
>> opponent allowed an unusual opening where there was an option to
>> sacrifice something to force a king move (with no calculable tactical
>> repercussions) - how much would you sacrifice?
>
>
> --
> tdiedwards
I have read that you can give up a piece for 2 central pawns if you keep the
initiative and deprive castling - so here the 'right' would be worth a pawn
or 3 points!
Anthony
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2005 09:16:42
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
tdiedwards <[email protected] > wrote:
>David Richerby Wrote:
>> tdiedwards [email protected]
>> wrote:[color=blue][i]
>>
>>
>> You are of course right. Usually, a sacrifice to force the king to move
>> would be part of a combination.
I wrote no such thing! Please attribute your quoted text correctly and
please try to thread your articles correctly.
>> But, let's say a temporarily distracted opponent allowed an unusual
>> opening where there was an option to sacrifice something to force a
>> king move (with no calculable tactical repercussions) - how much would
>> you sacrifice?
There are only no tactical repercussions if the sacrifice doesn't yield an
attack on the uncastled king. So, in those circumstances, it's hard to
see how it could be worth sacrificing anything at all.
But really, it depends on the circumstances. If you can force mate by
keeping the king in the middle, it's worth sacrificing any amount of
material; if you can't, it's a question of how much initiative you can
gain against the king that's stuck in the centre and whether you can
recoup your material or not.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Moistened Car (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car but
it's moist!
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2005 15:01:09
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
On 11 Oct 2005 09:16:42 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:
>But really, it depends on the circumstances. If you can force mate by
>keeping the king in the middle, it's worth sacrificing any amount of
>material; if you can't, it's a question of how much initiative you can
>gain against the king that's stuck in the centre and whether you can
>recoup your material or not.
The same argument nullifies any justification for assigning pawn
values to pieces, as chess is not a game of point scoring.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2005 14:32:29
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Right to Castling - relative value?
|
Toni Lassila <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But really, it depends on the circumstances. If you can force mate by
>> keeping the king in the middle, it's worth sacrificing any amount of
>> material; if you can't, it's a question of how much initiative you can
>> gain against the king that's stuck in the centre and whether you can
>> recoup your material or not.
>
> The same argument nullifies any justification for assigning pawn
> values to pieces, as chess is not a game of point scoring.
Yes and no. My argument is that the value of castling is very dependent
on position; the approximate equivalence of knights and bishops or the
idea that two rooks are fractionally better than a queen, for example,
holds in a much broader class of positions.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Frozen Zen Whisky (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a single-malt whisky that puts you
in touch with the universe but it's
frozen in a block of ice!
|
|
