I'm with tonydal here. A +0.6 is all fine and dandy mathmatically speaking, but for a player who is mortal, and not processing hundreds of thousands of positions per second, a practical application of +0.6 into a 'winning' game is hard to achieve. I think he was just getting a chuckle at how the computer decides what is a winning score. Perhaps the beast has calculated out a mate in 2,346 moves or something, you never know with these awful computer things anymore
That's not what he's saying at all. The point is that the number is false. Meaningless. It's no good in these kinds of endgame positions. It's a hint as to the nature of the position. That's all. You can't say that .6 is winning and .4 is a draw. You just can't. The argument has nothing to do with humans being weak players. The argument is that if you played perfectly (like Rybka) from a .6 position, you can't automatically say that it's winning.
Anyway, OP, the reason that you're drawing after f4-f5 is because of the backward e pawn. Memorize this endgame lesson: Outside pawns first, meaning the push the pawn on the edge of your pawn row (not the outside of the board). It's usually the pawn that's not facing an enemy pawn. This is one of those sayings that are generally good advice, similar to "rooks go behind passed pawns." It's how you make passers:
I'm not going to go on arguing about this (at least, not past this point, General)...but the point is that these merely numerical assertions don't really have much validity in the real chess world. After all, I can be up +6...but if it's 2 Ns vs K, that's not gonna do me a lot of good.
Additionally, +0.6 means quite a different thing in an endgame than it does in a complicated middlegame where one side or the other has an attack. Especially in such situations, these numerical evaluations are foreign (and often rather meaningless) to human players.
Anyway, if 4/10 of a pawn is "obviously" not enough to win, why should 6/10 of a pawn be so? That is my main point. And as for deciding on the water-carrying capacity of my case for me...I'd prefer to take care of that myself, thank you.
I was not commenting on the position you gave...but rather on your peculiar choice of +0.6 as some sort of arbitrary "winning" advantage.
ok, i gotta admit that was a REALLY good argument............................................