Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 14:30:45 10/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 2000 at 17:00:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 22, 2000 at 16:38:43, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On October 21, 2000 at 15:24:47, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>[D]r1bqkb1r/pp1p3p/6p1/3P1pN1/3n3Q/8/PP3PPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 1 >>>The test is to avoid Nc2+ without book. >>> >>>Jeroen claimed that the problem is that Tao had no book but I suspect that the >>>problem is the fact that Tao has no king attack evaluation and if you combine >>>with the fact that Tao is weak in tactics like most of the chess programs you >>>can get the blunder. >> >>Well no big deal you say so but... >> >>a) Tao was capable of beating Quest/Fritz on 2x slower hardware >>b) Tao-Xinix (round 6) was a tactical beauty. The King (the reference) could >>hardly have mated faster here. >> >>In all, I don't think it is THAT bad tactically... > >I did not say that it is bad in tactics relative to most of the programs and >most of the chess programs play Nc2+ without book. > >My Junior5.9 can avoid it at 4 hours/40 moves but cannot avoid it at 3 hours/40 >moves on my pentiumIII450 and Junior5.9 is better than most of the programs in >avoiding Nc2+. > >I can add that when I wrote that Tao has no king attack evaluation I meant to >say no big king attack evaluation(I think that Gambittiger and chesssystemtal >are the only programs with big king attack evaluation) Possibly, I can't really judge. But I would The King to that list. Why not start up a new sequence: AttackMaster 1000 in stead of CMxxxx ?!
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.