Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 27th 10, 05:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

In the thread "d6 or e6 Sicilian" Ray Lopez asserted that
essentially "the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black, especially if
they play d6 or e6." He asserted this was true whether or not any
actual pawn had been sacrificed. He based this on the claim that Fritz
5.32 evaluated some Sicilian lines at about +0.50 (half a pawn) in
White's favor, after a few seconds of analysis. He insisted such lines
were, therefore, "de facto pawn sacrifices," even though material was
actually completely even.

Ray naturally drew much criticism from chess players who adhered to
the traditional view that anything called a "pawn sacrifice" must
perforce entail the actual sacrifice of an actual pawn. I myself was
one of them. But now, on further reflection, I think Ray may have a
point.

Furthermore, I believe this point must be carried to its logical
conclusion: any two chess situations which are essentially equivalent
to each other must be given the same name. In this context, this means
that any chess position which Fritz 5.32 evaluates in the range of
+0.50 to +1.49, even without actual material differential, /must/ be
called a pawn sacrifice. No matter what Fritz's evaluation may be
based on positional weakness, lag in development, a bad bishop, a
knight outpost, king safety, space advantage, command of an open file,
etc. such a position must be called a pawn sacrifice, because the
evaluation rounds off to the value of a pawn.

And when there is a material difference involving things other than
pawns, if that difference is close to +1.00, it too comes under this
rule. Thus by the traditional 1/3/3/5/9 material values, the following
material imbalances:

Rook vs. two minor pieces
Minor piece vs. two pawns
Minor piece and pawn vs. rook
Rook and minor piece vs. queen

are henceforth all to be called "pawn sacrifices."
Furthermore, if White sacrifices an actual pawn, but the Fritz
evaluation is in White's favor in the +0.50-1.49 range, it must be
considered a pawn sac /by Black/.

Taking this to its logical extreme, I think this concept should be
applied outside chess. Any two things which are equivalent to each
other should all have the same name. And how is this equivalency to be
determined? Obviously, by the marketplace analog of the Fritz
evaluation: price. Two things which have the same price, by
definition, have the same value, and are therefore equivalent.
Thus if we have two cars of similar price, say a Cadillac Escalade
and a Chevy Corvette, which both sell for around $70,000, they should
go by the same name. Since they are essentially equivalent, there is
no need to distinguish between them.

We should even apply this to more dissimilar things. Lunch at
McDonald's and a paperback romance novel both cost about five or six
dollars, and so should go by the same name. We could call the book a
lunch, or vice versa, or invent a new, neutral word, or simply call
them both "5-dollar objects."

Furthermore, if two people order lunch at McDonald's, and one lunch
cost five dollars while the other cost six, the person paying more
must be said to have made a pawn sacrifice.
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 12:03 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 319
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

On Apr 27, 9:53*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
* In the thread "d6 or e6 Sicilian" Ray Lopez asserted that
essentially "the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black, especially if
they play d6 or e6." He asserted this was true whether or not any
actual pawn had been sacrificed. He based this on the claim that Fritz
5.32 evaluated some Sicilian lines at about +0.50 (half a pawn) in
White's favor, after a few seconds of analysis. He insisted such lines
were, therefore, "de facto pawn sacrifices," even though material was
actually completely even.

* Ray naturally drew much criticism from chess players who adhered to
the traditional view that anything called a "pawn sacrifice" must
perforce entail the actual sacrifice of an actual pawn. I myself was
one of them. But now, on further reflection, I think Ray may have a
point.

* Furthermore, I believe this point must be carried to its logical
conclusion: any two chess situations which are essentially equivalent
to each other must be given the same name. In this context, this means
that any chess position which Fritz 5.32 evaluates in the range of
+0.50 to +1.49, even without actual material differential, /must/ be
called a pawn sacrifice. No matter what Fritz's evaluation may be
based on positional weakness, lag in development, a bad bishop, a
knight outpost, king safety, space advantage, command of an open file,
etc. such a position must be called a pawn sacrifice, because the
evaluation rounds off to the value of a pawn.

* And when there is a material difference involving things other than
pawns, if that difference is close to +1.00, it too comes under this
rule. Thus by the traditional 1/3/3/5/9 material values, the following
material imbalances:

* Rook vs. two minor pieces
* Minor piece vs. two pawns
* Minor piece and pawn vs. rook
* Rook and minor piece vs. queen

are henceforth all to be called "pawn sacrifices."
* Furthermore, if White sacrifices an actual pawn, but the Fritz
evaluation is in White's favor in the +0.50-1.49 range, it must be
considered a pawn sac /by Black/.

* Taking this to its logical extreme, I think this concept should be
applied outside chess. Any two things which are equivalent to each
other should all have the same name. And how is this equivalency to be
determined? Obviously, by the marketplace analog of the Fritz
evaluation: price. Two things which have the same price, by
definition, have the same value, and are therefore equivalent.
* Thus if we have two cars of similar price, say a Cadillac Escalade
and a Chevy Corvette, which both sell for around $70,000, they should
go by the same name. Since they are essentially equivalent, there is
no need to distinguish between them.

* We should even apply this to more dissimilar things. Lunch at
McDonald's and a paperback romance novel both cost about five or six
dollars, and so should go by the same name. We could call the book a
lunch, or vice versa, or invent a new, neutral word, or simply call
them both "5-dollar objects."

* Furthermore, if two people order lunch at McDonald's, and one lunch
cost five dollars while the other cost six, the person paying more
must be said to have made a pawn sacrifice.



What he's saying is not absurd, but he's clearly ignorant of chess
terminology and not a good enough player to understand the positions
in question. In playing the Sicilian, Black creates an _imbalance_ in
the position to generate winning chances. This may mean he accepts a
theoretical disadvantage, but trying to quantify the position in the
first few moves is pretty much meaningless. Jeremy Silman does a good
job explaining the concept of "imbalance" in several of his books, and
people like Ray Lopez would be well advised to read a few of them
before making pronouncements beyond their competence.

  #3   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 02:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 618
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:53:24 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
wrote:

In the thread "d6 or e6 Sicilian" Ray Lopez asserted that
essentially "the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black, especially if
they play d6 or e6." He asserted this was true whether or not any
actual pawn had been sacrificed. He based this on the claim that Fritz
5.32 evaluated some Sicilian lines at about +0.50 (half a pawn) in
White's favor, after a few seconds of analysis. He insisted such lines
were, therefore, "de facto pawn sacrifices," even though material was
actually completely even.


I think he was scrambling to save face and came with that nonsense
when people jumped all over his initial claim that it was a real pawn
sac. Then he said it ws essentially a pawn sac because the backward
pawn would fall. When challenged on that, he started in with the
centipawn sacrifice BS.
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 10:23 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,015
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

jkh001 wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:53 am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
In the thread "d6 or e6 Sicilian" Ray Lopez asserted that
essentially "the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black, especially if
they play d6 or e6." He asserted this was true whether or not any
actual pawn had been sacrificed. He based this on the claim that Fritz
5.32 evaluated some Sicilian lines at about +0.50 (half a pawn) in
White's favor, after a few seconds of analysis. He insisted such lines
were, therefore, "de facto pawn sacrifices," even though material was
actually completely even.

Ray naturally drew much criticism from chess players who adhered to
the traditional view that anything called a "pawn sacrifice" must
perforce entail the actual sacrifice of an actual pawn. I myself was
one of them. But now, on further reflection, I think Ray may have a
point.

Furthermore, I believe this point must be carried to its logical
conclusion: any two chess situations which are essentially equivalent
to each other must be given the same name. In this context, this means
that any chess position which Fritz 5.32 evaluates in the range of
+0.50 to +1.49, even without actual material differential, /must/ be
called a pawn sacrifice. No matter what Fritz's evaluation may be
based on positional weakness, lag in development, a bad bishop, a
knight outpost, king safety, space advantage, command of an open file,
etc. such a position must be called a pawn sacrifice, because the
evaluation rounds off to the value of a pawn.

And when there is a material difference involving things other than
pawns, if that difference is close to +1.00, it too comes under this
rule. Thus by the traditional 1/3/3/5/9 material values, the following
material imbalances:

Rook vs. two minor pieces
Minor piece vs. two pawns
Minor piece and pawn vs. rook
Rook and minor piece vs. queen

are henceforth all to be called "pawn sacrifices."
Furthermore, if White sacrifices an actual pawn, but the Fritz
evaluation is in White's favor in the +0.50-1.49 range, it must be
considered a pawn sac /by Black/.

Taking this to its logical extreme, I think this concept should be
applied outside chess. Any two things which are equivalent to each
other should all have the same name. And how is this equivalency to be
determined? Obviously, by the marketplace analog of the Fritz
evaluation: price. Two things which have the same price, by
definition, have the same value, and are therefore equivalent.
Thus if we have two cars of similar price, say a Cadillac Escalade
and a Chevy Corvette, which both sell for around $70,000, they should
go by the same name. Since they are essentially equivalent, there is
no need to distinguish between them.

We should even apply this to more dissimilar things. Lunch at
McDonald's and a paperback romance novel both cost about five or six
dollars, and so should go by the same name. We could call the book a
lunch, or vice versa, or invent a new, neutral word, or simply call
them both "5-dollar objects."

Furthermore, if two people order lunch at McDonald's, and one lunch
cost five dollars while the other cost six, the person paying more
must be said to have made a pawn sacrifice.


You shouldn't mock the afflicted. It is unkind.


What he's saying is not absurd, but he's clearly ignorant of chess
terminology and not a good enough player to understand the positions
in question. In playing the Sicilian, Black creates an _imbalance_ in
the position to generate winning chances. This may mean he accepts a
theoretical disadvantage, but trying to quantify the position in the
first few moves is pretty much meaningless. Jeremy Silman does a good
job explaining the concept of "imbalance" in several of his books, and
people like Ray Lopez would be well advised to read a few of them
before making pronouncements beyond their competence.


It is also the case that Fritz doesn't really understand the Sicilian
and penalises it more than other more savvy modern strong engines. The
eval penalty is around 1/3 pawn for black nothing like a pawn sacrifice.
It tends to rearrenge pieces when it goes out of book as a result.

The position he posted as an example was particularly amusing since
there was a perfectly sound pawn sacrifice availiable to black!

Regards,
Martin Brown

  #5   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 05:13 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

On Apr 27, 12:53*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
* In the thread "d6 or e6 Sicilian" Ray Lopez asserted that
essentially "the Sicilian is a pawn sacrifice by Black, especially if
they play d6 or e6." He asserted this was true whether or not any
actual pawn had been sacrificed. He based this on the claim that Fritz
5.32 evaluated some Sicilian lines at about +0.50 (half a pawn) in
White's favor, after a few seconds of analysis. He insisted such lines
were, therefore, "de facto pawn sacrifices," even though material was
actually completely even.

* Ray naturally drew much criticism from chess players who adhered to
the traditional view that anything called a "pawn sacrifice" must
perforce entail the actual sacrifice of an actual pawn. I myself was
one of them. But now, on further reflection, I think Ray may have a
point.


Thank you Taylor. And I take back those spurious accusations I said
about you cross-dressing--I was rash a few minutes ago, prior to
reading this post. Congratulations on your daughter's wedding BTW. A
fine choice she made: Chevy Chase is full of old money too.


* Furthermore, I believe this point must be carried to its logical
conclusion: any two chess situations which are essentially equivalent
to each other must be given the same name. In this context, this means
that any chess position which Fritz 5.32 evaluates in the range of
+0.50 to +1.49, even without actual material differential, /must/ be
called a pawn sacrifice.


Yes, that's about right. I might quibble with term "must", as I would
qualify "pawn sacrifice" with the prefix " de facto ", as in "defacto
pawn sacrifice"


No matter what Fritz's evaluation may be
based on positional weakness, lag in development, a bad bishop, a
knight outpost, king safety, space advantage, command of an open file,
etc. such a position must be called a pawn sacrifice, because the
evaluation rounds off to the value of a pawn.


Correct.


* And when there is a material difference involving things other than
pawns, if that difference is close to +1.00, it too comes under this
rule. Thus by the traditional 1/3/3/5/9 material values, the following
material imbalances:

* Rook vs. two minor pieces
* Minor piece vs. two pawns
* Minor piece and pawn vs. rook
* Rook and minor piece vs. queen

are henceforth all to be called "pawn sacrifices."


Yes. But with one caveat (as I feel you are trying to parody this
fine point of mine): in the e6, d6 Sicilian lines, a "backward
pawn" (as defined by Wikipedia, not a de facto backward pawn, which is
the subject of a separate thread) creates this (leads to this) defacto
pawn sacrifice. Hence a simple trade of queen for two rooks (i.e.,
without queen + pawn for two rooks) is NOT a 'de facto' pawn
sacrifice, UNLESS it arose due to a backward pawn. Got it? It's a
subtle point, but as a fellow writer I trust you can grasp it.

* Furthermore, if White sacrifices an actual pawn, but the Fritz
evaluation is in White's favor in the +0.50-1.49 range, it must be
considered a pawn sac /by Black/.

* Taking this to its logical extreme, I think this concept should be
applied outside chess. Any two things which are equivalent to each
other should all have the same name. And how is this equivalency to be
determined? Obviously, by the marketplace analog of the Fritz
evaluation: price. Two things which have the same price, by
definition, have the same value, and are therefore equivalent.
* Thus if we have two cars of similar price, say a Cadillac Escalade
and a Chevy Corvette, which both sell for around $70,000, they should
go by the same name. Since they are essentially equivalent, there is
no need to distinguish between them.


No. But "de facto" they are fungible, correct. As recognized by
economists and lawyers.


* We should even apply this to more dissimilar things. Lunch at
McDonald's and a paperback romance novel both cost about five or six
dollars, and so should go by the same name. We could call the book a
lunch, or vice versa, or invent a new, neutral word, or simply call
them both "5-dollar objects."


Orwellian doublespeak? If carried to an excessive degree, yes.
Otherwise sound economics.

* Furthermore, if two people order lunch at McDonald's, and one lunch
cost five dollars while the other cost six, the person paying more
must be said to have made a pawn sacrifice.


Haha! Funny.

A book for you to review: Pawn Power in Chess (9780486264868): Hans
Kmoch.

RL


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 05:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

On Apr 28, 5:23*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

You shouldn't mock the afflicted. It is unkind.


Considering that Ray is arguably the most offensive, foul-mouthed,
immature and irresponsible troll on rgc, he does not inspire feelings
of kindness, nor deserve any. And mocking him is both fun and easy.
  #7   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 07:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 618
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
wrote:

On Apr 28, 5:23*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

You shouldn't mock the afflicted. It is unkind.


Considering that Ray is arguably the most offensive, foul-mouthed,
immature and irresponsible troll on rgc, he does not inspire feelings
of kindness, nor deserve any. And mocking him is both fun and easy.


What? Maybe I missed some of his most memorable posts. But he
doesn't seem to belong in the company of the Rev Hindu Cuz, the FSS,
the Caveman, and others. He just strikes me as someone a little out
of his league, not as a foul-mouthed troll.
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 07:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

On Apr 28, 2:08*pm, MikeMurray wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston

wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:23*am, Martin Brown
wrote:


You shouldn't mock the afflicted. It is unkind.


*Considering that Ray is arguably the most offensive, foul-mouthed,
immature and irresponsible troll on rgc, he does not inspire feelings
of kindness, nor deserve any. And mocking him is both fun and easy.


What? *Maybe I missed some of his most memorable posts.


You must have, Mike, if you think Ray does not fit the bill.

*But he
doesn't seem to belong in the company of the Rev Hindu Cuz, the FSS,
the Caveman, and others. *He just strikes me as someone a little out
of his league, not as a foul-mouthed troll.


Certainly those you named fit the bill, and have outdone Lopez in
that regard, but AFAIK they have not been active recently.
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 08:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

On Apr 28, 12:42*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:23*am, Martin Brown
wrote:



You shouldn't mock the afflicted. It is unkind.


* Considering that Ray is arguably the most offensive, foul-mouthed,
immature and irresponsible troll on rgc, he does not inspire feelings
of kindness, nor deserve any. And mocking him is both fun and easy.


Anyone that says so much as shucks, gosh, or worser is offensive to
our Kingston... in Kingston Hall no strong words are permitted unless
they are alluded to by the Most Reverend Taylor. Blasphemy and mocking
the name of God's Son is permitted.
  #10   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 09:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Equivalency (further musings on "pawn sacrifice")

On Apr 28, 12:42*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Apr 28, 5:23*am, Martin Brown
wrote:



You shouldn't mock the afflicted. It is unkind.


* Considering that Ray is arguably the most offensive, foul-mouthed,
immature and irresponsible troll on rgc, he does not inspire feelings
of kindness, nor deserve any. And mocking him is both fun and easy.


Laugh. This is Kingstonite for "does not agree with Taylor Kingston or
his secret friends, Molly Block or Fairy Stone", those who wrote here
to indiscriminately support his views, and his alone, then were never
seen again!

Having not made any clear point himself in reaction to Ray, there is
instead a resort to what Fritz thinks [viz its half point
differentiation]. Somewhat premature edification, I think.

So does Martin Brown and the author of How To Beat Fritz. The only
qualification I would add to that of M. Brown is that the Sicilian is
a /dynamically/ unbalancing system, intended to challenge opponent and
Fritz alike.

The difference is that in real chess played by people, rather than
theoretical chess not played by librarians, opponent must solve
problems raised in real time /without/ looking at its database [which
eliminates Fritz and Co.]

You should play the Sicilian any time you want to really fight and
reach for your lupo. Capiche?

Phil Innes

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017