Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:20:33 09/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2000 at 11:03:34, Uri Blass wrote: >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. It seems others also prefer 16. g4. I have no idea how long the move took to make nor if in analysis it will reject g4 at a certain point. Maybe Christian could check, but others in limited time modes would alos play this move: As the time controls were 40/40' it can be guessed the move took maybe 2 minutes. Crafty 17-13N takes 3:30 on my machine to switch to Bg3. Fritz 6b takes 0:46 to switch to Bg3. >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 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.