Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 09:47:21 04/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2000 at 12:03:45, Pierre Bourget wrote: >On April 22, 2000 at 11:26:16, Laurence Chen wrote: > >>On April 22, 2000 at 10:51:27, Pierre Bourget wrote: >> >>>Is it true in this position that Hiarcs play Qf7+ ?? because of the tablebase ? >>>Isn't it a little ridiculous.Look here for Tim Krabbe opinion: >>> >>>http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary.htm >>> >>>[D]5k2/2Q5/8/8/5p2/5P2/5P2/K7 w - - 0 1 >>What's your point then? I do this type of move against a human player, there >>reason why I do such thing is that the human player is too stubborn to resign, >>hence, he is asking for humiliation, and wants to take a long beating. So why >>not!!!! I find playing against this type of position against a human player who >>does not want to resign in a totally hopeless position, then he deserves to be >>torture to a slow death. I approve Hiarcs move, it still mates the opponent in >>25 moves. A mate is a mate no matter how many moves. A win is a win. >>Laurence > >My point is that it is bizarre to see computer give away pieces and pawns in the >endgame just to enter the tablebase for a sure win.I think it is not necessarily >a good example to someone who begin at chess(not me but others)and want to learn >the endgame with a computer. > >Pierre What if one walks into a Stalemate? By simplifying the position it removes the possibility of a stalemate. My style of playing is to always simplify the position to a sure win, which won't allow my opponents of any chance of stalemate nor counterplay. Laurence
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.