Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:47:33 01/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 1998 at 18:12:15, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On January 18, 1998 at 17:56:37, Amir Ban wrote: > >>I didn't spend more than a few minutes on each, and don't claim >>scientific accuracy. I welcome any deeper analysis done by anyone, but, >>since I have done this work, it would be a pity to just dismiss it. > >I think that your post had a lot of truth in it. I miss almost every >one that you miss, and your conclusions looked good even in the case >where mine prefers the solution rather than the cook. > >It sounded like Bob was going to fire up his text editor though. I guess my point is that some of these might be in the same league as the Nolot problems, and it would be a travesty to include a solution move that spoiled something like this. For example, I think 1. Nf3 wins in Nolot #5 (eval = +2 after a couple of days), but DT found 1. e5!! after 4 hours with an eval of > +3. Didn't someone try to claim that that that famous Botvinnik position: 8/p3q1kp/1p2Pnp1/3pQ3/2pP4/1nP3N1/1B4PP/6K w - - 0 1 was cooked becase after 1. h4, 2. Ba3 is still going to happen? bruce
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.