Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 02:33:42 01/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2001 at 02:25:59, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >Just to be clear. No, I'm not clear, sorry. I was a bit confused by Howard's and Uri's answers, they seemed a little upset of some sort by my analysis. Sorry, this is how I understood: Together with his chess programs Uri wasn't convinced that Qd4 was winning immediately. I wasn't also at first, so I analysed. After my analysis (FWIW!) I was convinced Qd4 is winning, so *if* I'm right no need to play h4, as *in general* it seems obvious to play a winning move, not another. It seemed to me that his message was centering around the notion of Qd4 as a winning move. Sorry if I understood that wrong. Howard simulated RC on his Athlon 900 and his findings suggested RC might have played Qe7 after 33…Qd4 34. g3. I didn't doubt that, thus didn't disagree with Howard, I merely pointed out with the help of my analysis (again, FWIW) that – *if * RC would have played that move- I don't think it to be the best solution. That's all. I thought my analysis might help in the discussion about the "right" move. It seems I was wrong, oops, sorry. No harm intended :) Jeroen ;-}
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.