Binders
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:21 pm
If I were Hans Kmoch, I could coin my very strange-sounding name for a specific chess eval feature.
Imagining myself for a moment in Hans's skin, binders would be any 2 pawns, controlling one and the same square on the board.
For example, b3 and d3 white pawns would be binders, as they simultaneously control the c4 square; for the same reason, h4 and f4 would be binders, as they simultaneously control the g5 square.
Binders are very important eval feature, as double pawn control is a prominent characteristic of a wide range of positions, which sometimes can drastically change the eval.
However, as mentioned, the key to good, better and excellent evaluation is to apply any concept precisely to the squares where it belongs.
In this particular case, I think binders are meaningful only in a very limited number of squares on the board, spanning the 5th and 6th ranks, as well as files c through f.
So if you ask me how to evaluate binders, I would limit them to the c5, d5, e5, f5 squares on the 5th rank, as well as the c6, d6, e6 and f6 squares on the 6th rank.
So any 2 pawns controlling at the same time the above 8 squares should receive some bonus. I would give some 30cps in the general case, but maybe the 5th rank can get 25cps, while the 6th rank 35cps.
So, b4 and d4 pawns would receive bonus for controlling c5 square at the same time; d4 adn f4 pawns for controlling e5 square at the same time; d5 and f5 pawns for controlling the e6 square at the same time; e5 adn g5 pawns for controlling the f6 square at the same time, etc.
So binders are the 2 pawns controlling the abovementioned squares, but we count a single bonus just for squares controlled, the 8 specific squares on the 5th and 6th ranks in the above scenario.
Someone might think that that is another stupid concept, however here I would vouch that this is very important and largely underestimated by engines of all strength.
For example, thanks to such pawns, openings like the Dutch Stonewall, the Stonewall Attack for white (the reverse of the Dutch Stonewall), the Maroczy Bind in the Sicilian, etc., are fuly sound, promising and vital, though many engines and some players might not quite agree.
Below some examples:
[d]r2q1rk1/1ppb1ppp/p1np1n2/2b1p3/2P1P3/2NP2PP/PP2NPBK/R1BQ1R2 b - - 0 1
This is some special kind of bind, I frequently play in my games against SF.
I call it the English Bind, as it usually arises after the moves c4 e5 Nc3 Nc6 g3 Nf6 Bg2 Bb4 e4 or c4 e5 Nc3 Nf6 e4
It is also possible to get this position via a transposition of the Sicilian, e4 c5 c4, and that is one of the reasons I consider the Sicilian not fully equal for black, because white can play c4 on the second move, but who would agree?
Never mind, the above position strongly favours white, no matter what engines might think.
White threatens f4-f5, with a strong attack, and the peculiarity of the position is that white firmly controls the center at the same time with the 2 white binders on c4 and e4, so black does not have counterplay in the center, can not play d6-d5 for a very long time, almost for ever, while the counterplay on the distant queen side is not as satisfactory and rapid.
It is also possible that white altogether wins this, but that would mean that both c4 and e4 win for white.
So, as binders c4 and e4 pawns above deserve some nice bonus, at least some 30cps, but how many engines would see it like that?
[d]rnbq1rk1/1p2b1pp/p1p1pn2/3p1p2/2PP1B2/2NBPN2/PP3PPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1
Another example.
A typical position of the Dutch Stonewall.
No matter what different engines might think, here black has at least full equality, and I even think black is better.
Although black lags seriously behind in development, 2 main eval feature turn the tables in black's favour:
- the d5 apex pawn, which is very strong and cements the position
- and the d5 and f5 binders, controlling the important e4 square; on this vital square later can land a black knight and stay there for a very long time, as it is supported not by one, but 2 own pawns
So I would give some nice bonus for the apex d5 pawn above, as well as the f5 and d5 binders, controlling the e4 square.
[d]r4rk1/1bb1qp1p/4p1p1/1p1pPnP1/p1pP2Q1/P1P1PR2/1PBN3P/R1B3K1 w - - 0 1
One last example.
e5 and g5 binders controlling the important f6 square definitely deserve a nice bonus; the same would not be true of the c4 and a4 black binders, controlling the b3 square, as this square is not that important and can be safely skipped.
Lastly, a distinction should be made between an apex pawn, a pawn defended by 2 own pawns, and a binder, a square controlled by 2 own pawns.
In the first case, you have another own pawn on the destination square, and in the second case, with binders, it really does not matter what you have on the doubly controlled destination square, it is usually empty, but there might also be a friendly piece or an enemy pawn. In the case of binders, it also does not quite matter if the opponent also has a pawn or 2 controlling the same square, though it is of course preferable for the opponent to control it as insufficiently as possible.
So with binders, you might just specify a square controlled by 2 own pawns.
Also, in distinction to apex pawns, where the important squares are on the 4th and 5th ranks, files c through f, with binders the important squares are on the 5th and 6th ranks, same files.
What do you think of this another stupid idea of mine?
Anyone implementing something similar?
Imagining myself for a moment in Hans's skin, binders would be any 2 pawns, controlling one and the same square on the board.
For example, b3 and d3 white pawns would be binders, as they simultaneously control the c4 square; for the same reason, h4 and f4 would be binders, as they simultaneously control the g5 square.
Binders are very important eval feature, as double pawn control is a prominent characteristic of a wide range of positions, which sometimes can drastically change the eval.
However, as mentioned, the key to good, better and excellent evaluation is to apply any concept precisely to the squares where it belongs.
In this particular case, I think binders are meaningful only in a very limited number of squares on the board, spanning the 5th and 6th ranks, as well as files c through f.
So if you ask me how to evaluate binders, I would limit them to the c5, d5, e5, f5 squares on the 5th rank, as well as the c6, d6, e6 and f6 squares on the 6th rank.
So any 2 pawns controlling at the same time the above 8 squares should receive some bonus. I would give some 30cps in the general case, but maybe the 5th rank can get 25cps, while the 6th rank 35cps.
So, b4 and d4 pawns would receive bonus for controlling c5 square at the same time; d4 adn f4 pawns for controlling e5 square at the same time; d5 and f5 pawns for controlling the e6 square at the same time; e5 adn g5 pawns for controlling the f6 square at the same time, etc.
So binders are the 2 pawns controlling the abovementioned squares, but we count a single bonus just for squares controlled, the 8 specific squares on the 5th and 6th ranks in the above scenario.
Someone might think that that is another stupid concept, however here I would vouch that this is very important and largely underestimated by engines of all strength.
For example, thanks to such pawns, openings like the Dutch Stonewall, the Stonewall Attack for white (the reverse of the Dutch Stonewall), the Maroczy Bind in the Sicilian, etc., are fuly sound, promising and vital, though many engines and some players might not quite agree.
Below some examples:
[d]r2q1rk1/1ppb1ppp/p1np1n2/2b1p3/2P1P3/2NP2PP/PP2NPBK/R1BQ1R2 b - - 0 1
This is some special kind of bind, I frequently play in my games against SF.
I call it the English Bind, as it usually arises after the moves c4 e5 Nc3 Nc6 g3 Nf6 Bg2 Bb4 e4 or c4 e5 Nc3 Nf6 e4
It is also possible to get this position via a transposition of the Sicilian, e4 c5 c4, and that is one of the reasons I consider the Sicilian not fully equal for black, because white can play c4 on the second move, but who would agree?
Never mind, the above position strongly favours white, no matter what engines might think.
White threatens f4-f5, with a strong attack, and the peculiarity of the position is that white firmly controls the center at the same time with the 2 white binders on c4 and e4, so black does not have counterplay in the center, can not play d6-d5 for a very long time, almost for ever, while the counterplay on the distant queen side is not as satisfactory and rapid.
It is also possible that white altogether wins this, but that would mean that both c4 and e4 win for white.
So, as binders c4 and e4 pawns above deserve some nice bonus, at least some 30cps, but how many engines would see it like that?
[d]rnbq1rk1/1p2b1pp/p1p1pn2/3p1p2/2PP1B2/2NBPN2/PP3PPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 1
Another example.
A typical position of the Dutch Stonewall.
No matter what different engines might think, here black has at least full equality, and I even think black is better.
Although black lags seriously behind in development, 2 main eval feature turn the tables in black's favour:
- the d5 apex pawn, which is very strong and cements the position
- and the d5 and f5 binders, controlling the important e4 square; on this vital square later can land a black knight and stay there for a very long time, as it is supported not by one, but 2 own pawns
So I would give some nice bonus for the apex d5 pawn above, as well as the f5 and d5 binders, controlling the e4 square.
[d]r4rk1/1bb1qp1p/4p1p1/1p1pPnP1/p1pP2Q1/P1P1PR2/1PBN3P/R1B3K1 w - - 0 1
One last example.
e5 and g5 binders controlling the important f6 square definitely deserve a nice bonus; the same would not be true of the c4 and a4 black binders, controlling the b3 square, as this square is not that important and can be safely skipped.
Lastly, a distinction should be made between an apex pawn, a pawn defended by 2 own pawns, and a binder, a square controlled by 2 own pawns.
In the first case, you have another own pawn on the destination square, and in the second case, with binders, it really does not matter what you have on the doubly controlled destination square, it is usually empty, but there might also be a friendly piece or an enemy pawn. In the case of binders, it also does not quite matter if the opponent also has a pawn or 2 controlling the same square, though it is of course preferable for the opponent to control it as insufficiently as possible.
So with binders, you might just specify a square controlled by 2 own pawns.
Also, in distinction to apex pawns, where the important squares are on the 4th and 5th ranks, files c through f, with binders the important squares are on the 5th and 6th ranks, same files.
What do you think of this another stupid idea of mine?
Anyone implementing something similar?