Author: Howard Exner
Date: 07:17:30 01/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 1998 at 06:54:01, Amir Ban wrote: >On January 22, 1998 at 05:04:43, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On January 21, 1998 at 14:24:23, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >> > >>ECM16 Sokol'skij vs Botvinnik (may be a variation as not all ECM >>examples >>were actual game moves) >>1... Rxc5 2.Bxc5 Nf3 3.gxf3 Bxf3 4.Qc2 Bxd1 5.Qxd1 Qg5 -+ >>This is what the book says but you can clearly see the entire line >>is flawed. Nf3? Qc2? >> > >Right. 3... Bxf3? 4. Be7 makes black feel really stupid. So there's no >combination here. > > >>ECM99: Miranovic vs Gorev >>1.Qxd5! Rxd5 2.Nf6 Kh8 3.Bg5! Kg7 4.Rh7 Kf8 5.Rh8 Ke7 6.Nd5 +- >>Again your programs will expose the flaws in this one also. >> > >Here I disagree. 1... Rxd5 is suicide, but that only proves that the key >is correct. It does take a piece, no ? It looks like the tail end of a routine piece exchange on d5. I'm not so sure if would have met the requirements of a decisive combination had they discovered Be5 in reply to Qxd5. If the defender has to decline a sacrifice then it's correct. The previous moves would need to have been included to determine if it was a sacrifice or just a routine piece exchange. I would drop this one. > >Amir
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.