David Kane wrote:

What do you mean by "advantage"?


See my point? The man doesn't even know what an
advantage is!


Many K+P vs. K games are theoretically drawn.


Right. Are you looking at the same position as the
one in their actual game?


Not only that, they are practically drawn between
players of a certain skill level. Do you still say in that case
that the side with the pawn has an advantage?


In the game I am discussing, both sides had a number
of pawns, plus a Bishop each. You seem to be refering
to an imaginary position which exists only in your own
mind. Do you have a problem discussing the *actual*
game?


I'll concede that if you give the same KP vs. P
position to a class of 6 year olds, the side
with the pawn will score a lot of wins.


Um, no. In fact there will be "wins" for both sides,
as any experienced TD can verify. Plus many draws.
Do you imagine Fischer to be similar to a six year old
on account of his babblings regarding things other than
chess? Back to your imaginary game: the side with
the pawn will likely win more games overall because
even such "creative" kids have trouble imagining being
checkmated by a bare King (there will always be
exceptions!).


So it might be reasonable to claim an "advantage"
in that group.


Okay.


But for Evans to be wrong in this case, you have to


Hold on a sec there, junior! I don't have to argue
anything. Evans' analysis *has already been refuted*
by others. More to the point, his comments require
nothing more than an understanding of chess concepts,
and of course, logic, to properly assess. Ideas like
"backpeddling", "shifting ground" and the like require
no special chess analysis skills to recognise, just
being observant. Take for example, the known fact
that both players refused to shake hands, but instead
played on. Had this been completely "dead drawn", as
one ratpacker had it, somebody would have been forced
to extend his hand out of embarassment, if nothing else.
Or maybe they could have gone until stalemate, ignoring
the cameras and spectators.

In particular, the single biggest problem with Evans' many
comments regarding everything Fischer is his inconsistency,
his persistent ground shifting. At one time, Evans correctly
used a thing called logic to cut through the cr*p and tell us
that Fischer himself was responsible for his own premature
retirement from active play. Not long afterward, GM Evans
began to shuffle and dance, telling everyone who would
listen that the evil Russians (who controlled FIDE) were the
real culprits. Had he simply renounced his earlier position,
this would be called having a change of heart. But holding
dearly to every word he has ever written, our man Evans
has created quake after quake, a new dance style, and a
whole lot of contortion and twisting about.


credibly argue that *Fischer* or other strong GMs
were likely to lose it.


Perhaps you need a refresher course in logical thinking.
This strawman of yours may well be fun, but it has no
bearing on the case. Not one poster here has argued
that Fischer "was likely to lose" w/o Bxh2 -- that is, until
you showed up! LOL


But of course you can't. Or are
you saying that Evans should have included a "scholastic
chess perspective" when discussing a game between
the world's top 2 players?


Good one. Two straw men are better than one.
Build them up, then knock them down. What fun!

How about this one: Evans said Fischer was up a whole
Rook after Bxh2!, Kc2 Bg1, Kb1 Bxf2, Ka1 Bxe3 _+



FWIW,

gasp

computers that annihilate me from all kinds
of equal and inferior positions can only draw
against me from that one.


1. suggest giving the computer *White*

2. try one of the strong programs, with access during
play (sorry, Innes!) to endgame tablebases.

3. set contempt factor so it is not willing to draw except
when not given any choice

4. allow sufficient time per move for computer to see in
advance any forced repetitions which may force a draw

5. hashtables, speed, time -- these are all necessary,
since computers suck at long-term strategy

In particular, I recommend one of the top-rated programs,
as these are guaranteed to be good endgame players --
unlike some of the weaker programs.

--------------------------------------

Type "Fischer Spassky Bxh2" into a Web search box and
the game appears, like magic. Chessgames.com?

It is interesting to see the skill it required for White to win
against Fischer's stubborn defense. Themes like zugzwang
and manuever show that no simplistic computer is going to
jump out and show you an obvious win here, the way they
do with tactics in the middlegame.

-- help bot