Author: Harald Faber
Date: 03:48:32 07/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1999 at 06:23:44, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On July 20, 1999 at 04:25:05, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>There was an earlier game in the Noteboom somebody -- perhaps you -- posted >>here, with Rebel 10.0 as white vs. Chess Tiger. The opening was also a >>Noteboom, and the verdict of the poster of the game was that Chess Tiger simply >>fell into a bad opening line. I looked at the game, and it was straight out of >>"Play the Noteboom", by Mark van der Werf and Teun van der Vorm. The game >>followed Maggeramov - Sherbakov, Moscow 1992 all the way to move 32. From the >>book: "Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange. The light squares on >>White's kingside are terribly weak. The first threat is 32...Bh3+ and wins." >>All the same, Rebel got in f4 and went on to win very shortly thereafter. I was >>going to take a harder look at the line, because if White is really winning >>there then Black needs to deviate somewhere earlier... but I've been busy, and >>haven't gotten around to it yet. > >Interesting comment. I have seen some more comp-comp games >with this line and none of the programs was able to show >adequate compensation for Black. > >Thus I think the human verdict of 'sufficient compensation' >might be wrong. It might be a good idea to try this out in >some testgames using the best programs. Still, I must admit >that I don't trust the line for Black any longer. > >Best regards, Jeroen Noomen You find such quick shots very often. Authors analyze openings and opening lines up to a certain point with their final evaluation, let's say position is equal. What is missing is the WHY and which ideas black and white should follow. Even more dangerous is the "black/white has compensation for the material". I am sure there are several examples where this eval is strictly wrong, may it be that one of us finds the refusing line or a program does. This makes me think that many authors do an easy job and stay on the surface instead of getting deeper into the resulting position. Looking at the next 2-5 moves may show some problems. In this case I am very interested in John Nunn's Chess Openings where ALL lines have been checked with a program (anyone knows which one he/they used?) so that short move blunders are (should be?) excluded. I bet that more than 2/3 of the opening positions the authors evaluate as "XXX has compensation" will be lost if the authors themselves would have to continue the game against any TOP-20 program. The whole issue again reminds me on a funny thing. One author found a position as better for white, another author stated in his opening book that the same position was better for black. :-) (Both GMs)
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.