Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:31:56 01/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2001 at 05:15:20, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 17, 2001 at 05:04:36, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 17, 2001 at 04:52:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On January 17, 2001 at 04:38:13, Dan Andersson wrote: >>> >>>>Yes, one should not weaken the pawn position in that way. My point is that Rebel >>>>was forced into the pawn endgame instead of going for it immediatelly, if it had >>>>seen the endgame as winning it would have forced it. >>> >>>During that part of the game I was very surprised to see Rebel keeping a >>>+pawn score all the time even after Rd7 as the remaining pawn ending is >>>equal in material. I did not get it. If memory serves me well the first >>>3-4 moves in the end-game the Rebel score remained a pawn up before the >>>score started to climb, seeing the win. I still must check my code where >>>on earth that positional advantage comes from :) >> >>I think that you should check because the advantage is clearly more than one >>pawn and Deep Fritz has no problem to see more than 2 pawns advantage at >>tournament time control. >> >>Uri > >The score go down after more time only to fail high again so it seems that Deep >Fritz does not see deeper than Rebel. > >Uri My Deep Fritz did not use a lot of tablebases in my first search. I do not see the fail low when I give Deep Fritz to use tablebases including the KPPvs KP tablebases and the score climbs slowly to more than +2 but not at tournament time control. 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.