Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:07:37 01/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2001 at 05:33:42, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >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. I did not check your analysis but it does not include the line 34.h4 Rxc3 35.Kh2. If you want to prove that black is winning then this is one of the lines that you have to refute Uri
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.