Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:05:50 06/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2001 at 08:15:32, martin fierz wrote: >i took a glance at the banikas-junior game (1-0) because i expected it >to be typical anti-computer chess. however, this was not the case - >banikas played a normal game. trading pieces into pawn endgame when you hope that the opponent is going to do a mistake is an anti computer strategy. The GM did not have to trade pieces into a drawn pawn endgame and could play moves like 30.Qe2 after 27.Qc2 > >[D]8p4pk11p4pp3pq34n34P1PPPPQ2PK13B4 > >white has definitely achieved nothing but junior messes up with ..d4. >i have no computer here to analyze this seriously, but it seems that >after > >27... d4 28.Qd3 dxe3 29.Qxe3 f5 30.Bf3 Qc5 31.Bxe4 Qxe3 32.fxe3 fxe4 33.Kf2 >the pawn ending is lost. >...g5 34.Ke2 g4 35.h4 Kf6 36.Kd2 Ke5 37.Kc3 Kd5 38.Kb4 a6 39.a4 h5 40.b3 Kd6 >41.Kc4 Ke5 42.b4 a5 43.bxa5 bxa5 44.Kc5 Ke6 45.Kd4 Kf5 46.Kd5 Kf6 47.Kxe4 1-0 > >anyway, my question is a bit different: there is this 'rule' that queen+knight >is better than queen+bishop. in this sense, 27...d4 is a big mistake because >it allows white to trade off bishop and knight. maybe junior could still have >played a queen ending with a different move than 30...Qc5, but this is not my >point - do your programs know this piece-combination rule or not? > >cheers > martin > >PS 27...Nf6 should be just fine for black I do not think that Nf6 is better than d4. Black could draw without pawn endgame after d4(for example by 30...Qxb2) The pawn endgame was also clearly a drawn pawn endgame and I am sure about the outcome. I believe that the problem is simply the fact that Amir Ban did not work about pawn endgames so Junior does not know how to play them correctly(this is the reason for the g5 move). 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.