Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:37:46 09/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2000 at 11:03:34, Uri Blass wrote:
>On September 11, 2000 at 10:17:49, Peter Skinner wrote:
>
>>On September 11, 2000 at 10:12:33, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>>
>>>Kein text. Bitte nicht lesen.
>>
>>On a side note, I feel that Gandalf 4.32e was the better version. It seemed to
>>handle odd book lines better. And it seemed to use it's time better. Those are
>>just my personal views.
>
>Unfortunately there is no information from the games that were posted about time
>and evaluations of Gandalf so it is impossible for me to know.
>
>Here is one blunder of Gandalf4.32f against Crafty
>
>[D]r4rk1/3p1ppp/1pb1p3/p1b1P2B/2P2B1q/P1N5/1PQ2PPP/3R1RK1 w - - 0 1
>
>We have no information how much time did Gandalf use to play 16.g4 instead of
>16.Bg3.
>
>We have no information if using more time could practically help it to find a
>better move.
>Gandalf lost the game after 16.g4?? Qh3 17.Nd5 exd5 18.Rd3 Qh4 19.Qd2?(again Bg3
>was probably better) dxc4 20.Bg5 Qxg5 21.Qxg5 cxd3 when black has a winning
>position.
>
>Uri
If the game is still in the ICC history, you can get the times for the moves.
Make certain you set the parameter correctly by typing 'set mailformat 0' (this
is a non-PGN format that includes the times per move), then use the 'mailstored'
command to send the games (with times) to your e-mail address.
Albert Silver
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.