Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:43:22 03/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2000 at 21:31:38, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On March 17, 2000 at 21:03:40, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >>Hi Dann, >> >>>In order to create an accurate tactical suite, I would like to have these rows >>>crunched by alternative software tools. The current analysis does not get "the >>>right answer" so the question is, will other programs see it? >> >>Most of the positions you posted do *not* seem to be tactical but >>rather positional in nature (e.g. "Soszynski 80 #13" is actually >>from the positional subset of LCT-II). >> >>>[D]r1r3k1/5p2/p3p1p1/b6p/Pp2N3/1P2P3/5PPP/2R1K2R w K - acd 18; acn 1259897193; >>>ce -32; pv O-O Bd8 Rfd1 Be7 Kf1 Kf8 Ke1 f5 Ng3 Rc3 Rb1 Kf7 Ne2 Rc5 Rbc1 Rac8 >>>Rxc5 Bxc5 Nd4; pm O-O; bm Ke2; id "Soszynski 80 #8"; >> >>Positional -- "DarkThought WCCC'99" never chooses 0-0 as best. It likes >>Ke2 from the beginning and even switches to Kd2 in iteration #15. > >Which brings the question to mind: why would anyone want their king on g1 >instead of d2 or e2 here? Playing O-O looks like a serious mistake to me. I'll bet it's a somewhat misapplied king safety calculation. Still three loose pieces on the board and castling looks sensible if you can't see the board (I know that sounds silly, but I bet most king safety calculations just look at game phase). In any case, it's not a big loss, because you can always pop the king whenever you like by opening the can with g3. I think e2 is better, but it's very marginally better. You have to do something to protect the rook, and it's about time to bring the king into the fray. But I remain unconvinced that one move is vastly superior to the other. Of course, I'm not a great player. By the way, I'm looking over that document you sent me and I will suggest some changes.
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.