Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 11:49:12 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 11:31:31, Roy Eassa wrote:
>On October 07, 2002 at 09:12:18, Terry Ripple wrote:
>
>>On October 07, 2002 at 07:12:12, horst meyer wrote:
>>
>>>if u think Bf8 was weak, please provide some analysis
>>
>>The black Bishop moved 3 times with in the first 12 moves and it's move to Bf8
>>was not a developing move. It slowed black's developing plus he couldn't 0-0
>>until he prepared g6, Bg7 which Fritz never did! The move Bf8 would have made a
>>little more sense if Fritz done this even though he lost a tempo bringing the
>>Bishop back to Bf8. If Fritz desired to keep the Bishop on this diagnal he could
>>have atleast placed it on Be7 or placed it on Bb6.
>>
>>Remember, if Fritz's King would have been 0-0 he wouldn't have had been in that
>>ugly uncover-check on move #31.Rd4+!!
>>
>>Regards,
>> Terry
>
>
>That discovered check was seen way ahead by Fritz and did not cause Fritz harm.
>In fact, it was used by Kramnik as a tool to re-establish material equality,
>thus having traded off into an endgame that Fritz evaluates as equal but in
>which Kramnik had a win by force. It was this lack of understanding by Fritz
>that this was a losing endgame that was the problem, not the discovered check.
I agree that the discovered check was seen by Fritz and most average chess
players could easily have seen it also!
My point is that Fritz didn't understand the position or he would have never
left himself get into such a mess that benefited Kramnik by allowing more pieces
to come off the board and thus a forced winning position! Terrible!!!
Regards,
Terry
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.