Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Thank you for the info, Peter. Appreciated. (NT)

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 08:03:34 09/11/00

Go up one level in this thread


On September 11, 2000 at 10:17:49, Peter Skinner wrote:

>On September 11, 2000 at 10:12:33, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>
>>Kein text. Bitte nicht lesen.
>
>On a side note, I feel that Gandalf 4.32e was the better version. It seemed to
>handle odd book lines better. And it seemed to use it's time better. Those are
>just my personal views.

Unfortunately there is no information from the games that were posted about time
and evaluations of Gandalf so it is impossible for me to know.

Here is one blunder of Gandalf4.32f against Crafty

[D]r4rk1/3p1ppp/1pb1p3/p1b1P2B/2P2B1q/P1N5/1PQ2PPP/3R1RK1 w - - 0 1

We have no information how much time did Gandalf use to play 16.g4 instead of
16.Bg3.

We have no information if using more time could practically help it to find a
better move.
Gandalf lost the game after 16.g4?? Qh3 17.Nd5 exd5 18.Rd3 Qh4 19.Qd2?(again Bg3
was probably better) dxc4 20.Bg5 Qxg5 21.Qxg5 cxd3 when black has a winning
position.

Uri



This page took 0.01 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.