Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:40:02 01/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2001 at 06:31:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 17, 2001 at 05:15:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 17, 2001 at 05:04:36, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 17, 2001 at 04:52:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On January 17, 2001 at 04:38:13, Dan Andersson wrote: >>>> >>>>>Yes, one should not weaken the pawn position in that way. My point is that Rebel >>>>>was forced into the pawn endgame instead of going for it immediatelly, if it had >>>>>seen the endgame as winning it would have forced it. >>>> >>>>During that part of the game I was very surprised to see Rebel keeping a >>>>+pawn score all the time even after Rd7 as the remaining pawn ending is >>>>equal in material. I did not get it. If memory serves me well the first >>>>3-4 moves in the end-game the Rebel score remained a pawn up before the >>>>score started to climb, seeing the win. I still must check my code where >>>>on earth that positional advantage comes from :) >>> >>>I think that you should check because the advantage is clearly more than one >>>pawn and Deep Fritz has no problem to see more than 2 pawns advantage at >>>tournament time control. >>> >>>Uri >> >>The score go down after more time only to fail high again so it seems that Deep >>Fritz does not see deeper than Rebel. >> >>Uri > >My Deep Fritz did not use a lot of tablebases in my first search. >I do not see the fail low when I give Deep Fritz to use tablebases including >the KPPvs KP tablebases and the score climbs slowly to more than +2 but not at >tournament time control. > >Uri I forgot to post the relvant position and here is therelevant position. [D]8/p2k3p/6p1/5p2/1P5P/6P1/3K1P2/8 b - - 0 1 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.