Author: Will Singleton
Date: 23:17:03 11/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2000 at 18:51:38, Paulo Soares wrote: >On November 07, 2000 at 14:53:20, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On November 07, 2000 at 11:16:06, kurt wrote: >> >(snipped) >>>>The reason why Rfc1 is quite logical. >>>>1.Computer sees Pawn loss on a2. >>>>2.Can not find a defencive move for it. >>>>3.Accepts loss and searches for continuation after the loss of pawn. >>>>4.Finds Queen trap after Qa2 Rba1.Qb2 Rfb1 would force a draw. >>>>5.Evaluation of other line comparision gives Rfc1! >>>>regards,Kurt Widmann >> >>[ kurt, I don't understand how you can post an original message with quotes. >>How do you do that, and why? ] >> >>You are right. My thinking was that Rfc1 would, in most cases (read, Amateur >>programs with about 40 seconds to move) cause black to take the a2 pawn with the >>Queen, thus allowing white to force the perpetual. >> >>As it turns out, crafty and rebel both like Rfc1 because it saves the a2 pawn >>with a better resulting position than you get from Qe2. But my original just >>concerned the idea of finding the rep draw. >> >>I guess it would be interesting to see how many programs (non-commercial) would >>avoid Qxa2 after Rfc1. >> >>Will > >Thanks to >> Kurt :) >and to you for the explanation about the position. >Why you don't think interesting that commercial programs analyze >the position? > >Paulo Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that commercial output is uninteresting. Thanks very much for your contribution, it was very enlightening. I think it's also important for amateur progs to see if they can solve the position. It's kind of on the edge of discovery for mine, so I was interested to compare to others.
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.