Tonight I was watching the Stockfish-Komodo game from TCEC when this position was reached:
[D]1r2r1k1/1b3pp1/1q1p1nn1/3P2N1/1bp1PPPp/2N4P/1BQ3B1/4RR1K w - - 1 27
Stockfish showed a confident evaluation of 0.79, probably thinking that he will be a pawn up after he manages to capture the c-pawn. Few moves later it took that pawn.
[D]r3r1k1/5pp1/q2p1nn1/3P2N1/1bb1PPPp/2N2R1P/1B4B1/2RQ3K w - - 11 36
An interesting feature of this position is that all pieces are still on the board but almost all pawns from the queenside have already dissappeared leaving a pawn structure with only a small width (files d-h). The evaluation dropped drastically: Stockfish probably have realized that the possible endgames after massive exchanges were all drawish... Now I was safe to go to sleep without fearing that I will miss something.
Maybe already in the middlegame the size "minimum bounding rectangle" (here d3-h7) of the pawn entire structure can be some measure of the drawishness of the possible endgames? Of course the height of that rectangle is a less important factor than the width but probably it has also some importance (the more close are the opposing pawns to each other the more likely are some further pawn exchanges.)
At first sight I will say that seems more a problem about the pawns that are weak, and can be forced to advance and leave holes, or in the long term cannot be defended.
Arpad Rusz wrote:Tonight I was watching the Stockfish-Komodo game from TCEC when this position was reached:
[D]1r2r1k1/1b3pp1/1q1p1nn1/3P2N1/1bp1PPPp/2N4P/1BQ3B1/4RR1K w - - 1 27
Stockfish showed a confident evaluation of 0.79, probably thinking that he will be a pawn up after he manages to capture the c-pawn. Few moves later it took that pawn.
[D]r3r1k1/5pp1/q2p1nn1/3P2N1/1bb1PPPp/2N2R1P/1B4B1/2RQ3K w - - 11 36
An interesting feature of this position is that all pieces are still on the board but almost all pawns from the queenside have already dissappeared leaving a pawn structure with only a small width (files d-h). The evaluation dropped drastically: Stockfish probably have realized that the possible endgames after massive exchanges were all drawish... Now I was safe to go to sleep without fearing that I will miss something.
Maybe already in the middlegame the size "minimum bounding rectangle" (here d3-h7) of the pawn entire structure can be some measure of the drawishness of the possible endgames? Of course the height of that rectangle is a less important factor than the width but probably it has also some importance (the more close are the opposing pawns to each other the more likely are some further pawn exchanges.)
What do you think? Does it makes sense?
I would think many implement this in one way or another, as pawns on both wings is good if your position is better, but worse if you are struggling to draw.
Going to an endgame, we saw already in TCEC two games of Gull knowing that KRPPPKRPP with pawns on the same side was near draw, and Komodo and Stockfish entering it thinking to win because of near +1.
It's because of this function on Gull:
template <bool me> int krpppkrppx() {
cdani wrote:Going to an endgame, we saw already in TCEC two games of Gull knowing that KRPPPKRPP with pawns on the same side was near draw, and Komodo and Stockfish entering it thinking to win because of near +1.
It's because of this function on Gull:
template <bool me> int krpppkrppx() {
I did say "many" and not "all".
However, that being said, I think the basic idea of the "span" of pawns is pretty important. IE if you are a pawn down, but all pawns are on 1/2 of the board, that's tough to win. As the span increases, winning chances go up since pieces and the king have to defend both sides of the board rather than just one.
