In the position shown in the first chapter the computer suggest shows the best move being for white being to use the obstacle rooks to capture the black bishops, even though rooks are not allowed to move along diagonals. In the second chapter I noticed that the computer has some arrows suggesting that the white bishops on the dark squares should make lateral movements. This makes me wonder if the advantage the computer shows for white is real or the result of a bug involving illegal moves in the evaluation.
I think your computer is broken. Mine suggest Qab3 on pos 1 and Qb5 on pos 2.
in chapter one the four of five suggested move by engine is illegal.
1. Rxf7 1. Rxh7 1. Rxb7 1. Bh5
I try to reload the page and it appears ok. I reload again at it appears illegal.
Chapter two it is ok.
1. Rxf7 1. Rxh7 1. Rxb7 1. Bh5
I try to reload the page and it appears ok. I reload again at it appears illegal.
Chapter two it is ok.
I noticed that the computer analysis is inconsistent in its evaluation for these two starting positions as it showed white as having a forced mate when it suggested the illegal moves, and then gave an evaluation of -99 when it suggested legal moves for the first, and first gave an evaluation of +99 for the second position, but later gave an evaluation of 0 for the second position.
I was thinking about how normally we say a queen is worth 9 points, a rook 5 points, a bishop about 3.5 points, a knight 3 points, and a pawn 1 point, but in these positions while white may have a massive material advantage in terms of how we normally count material most of whites bishops are immobile and restrict the white kings movement just as much as they restrict the black kings movement, as well as restricting the white queens to only moving like bishops. So if we count the amount of useful material that each player has then we could say that the dark squared bishops have 0 useful material points, and the queens and bishops are worth the same number of useful material points. The rooks are just obstacles that cannot move and so could be said to be worth a negative number of useful material points. I wonder if the inconsistency in the evaluation is at all related to inconsistencies in material count at all.
I was thinking about how normally we say a queen is worth 9 points, a rook 5 points, a bishop about 3.5 points, a knight 3 points, and a pawn 1 point, but in these positions while white may have a massive material advantage in terms of how we normally count material most of whites bishops are immobile and restrict the white kings movement just as much as they restrict the black kings movement, as well as restricting the white queens to only moving like bishops. So if we count the amount of useful material that each player has then we could say that the dark squared bishops have 0 useful material points, and the queens and bishops are worth the same number of useful material points. The rooks are just obstacles that cannot move and so could be said to be worth a negative number of useful material points. I wonder if the inconsistency in the evaluation is at all related to inconsistencies in material count at all.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.