Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 20:04:59 09/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2000 at 21:18:14, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On September 21, 2000 at 20:38:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>I'm a bit surprised about programs which solve any sac in testsets, >>but they lose in games because of a sac. > >The position was difficult for black, with or without the sac, so losing >"because of" only is wrong. And you're comparing two different version if I'm >not very much mistaken, so the direct comparison and subsequent conclusion is >invalid as well. Why don't you read Vincent's original post a bit closer? He says: 'would be interesting to seehow Gandalf evaluates this now!' So clearly he is not making any conclusion about the current version. I'm thankful that people like Vincent still post interesting things on CCC, otherwise we would just have the usual endless debates about whether computers are GM strength, or the results of the latest coin tossing experiment. Back to the subject: can anyone post Gandalf analysis for that position? > >>Note this is not the case with tiger, it's known to sacrafice pawns >>easily in the center (like the gs2930 is all about), it wins regurarly >>games because of this at icc. So very consequent behaviour. > >LOL, that's what we in Denmark would call complete bollocks. > >Mogens.
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.