Author: José Carlos
Date: 01:14:52 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 14:22:11, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 08:48:43, José Carlos wrote: > >>On March 14, 2001 at 04:15:34, Eelco de Groot wrote: >> >>>Computers these days..I don't understand them anymore. Computer with Black has >>>played against me, Blitzlevel, >>> >>>1.h4 d5 2.d4 Bg4 3.f3 Bf5 4.g4 Bc8 * and thinks with Black it is fine at +0.20. >>> >>>Maybe it is right?! >>> >>> >>>[D]rnbqkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p4/3P2PP/5P2/PPP1P3/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 >> >> I think white is worse than 0.20 in this position. Remember pawns cannot move >>backwards... and white has created too many weaknesses here. >> IMHO, white is lost in this position. >> >> José C. > >Lost? White has captured a lot of space on the K-side at no cost in time. Black >is cramped here. This somehow balanced by the weaknesses you speak of, so it is >by no means clear. "Lost" requires proof. Where is the proof? No proof is possible when talking about a positional evaluation, if we consider a proof as some variations demonstrating superiority. But let's look at ideas and threats: what to do after ... Qd6? (threatning Qg3+ and if f4, Bg4) and what about ... c5? (destroying white center). I cannot give you a precise analysis here, since I'm at work, and my boss is around :) but we can play an email game from this position, if you want... ehem... and I want black pieces :) José C.
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.