Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:18:55 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 06:42:52, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On August 25, 2000 at 19:07:49, Amir Ban wrote: > >Hi Amir, > >>So you are to blame. > >Yes. I had the position after Rb1! on the board at home, a few days before the >WMCCC started. > >>I was looking for someone to strangle all afternoon and I guess it should be >you and Karpov. > >Uuuh, do Karpov, I want to live a bit longer :-)) > >>Junior saw some compensation. My score never went below -0.50. Tiger's evals of >>1+ were drunk, > >I think that after Junior's f7-f6 there is not enough compensation. Tiger should >have prevented the f5-f4 plan. +1 is too much, but Tiger evaluates differently. >I guess -0,50 is a bit too optimistic, especially after f7-f6. Still, Junior >created good counterplay and Tiger didn't counter this on time. So IMO the draw >is a fair result. > >>and I don't care if Shredder agrees with him. Programs make the >>worst mistakes when they are most happy. It was just below zero before Bd3, so >>it went for Rc8 (which it thought leads to a draw by repetition, but Tiger >>refused to repeat, again a misjudgement IMO). > >It is amazing how many programs evaluate white clearly better after ... Rc8 >Qxc8+. I think that Junior saw deeper and found some tactics connected with the >move e6-e5! This was very strong indeed and it takes some depth to see this. I guess that the difference is in the evaluation. Junior5.9 has a different evaluation and needs a long time to see a draw evaluation after e4 It wants to play Qh5 and not e5. Junior(london) played e5 with evaluation of 0.72 pawns advantage for black. I do not know if the evaluation of Junior(london) is better or worse but it is an interesting evaluation that is clearly different than other programs. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.