Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:48:39 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 04:14:52, José Carlos wrote: >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). It is white to move and not black to move so the first question is what is the best move for white. Even if it is black to move I think that white has a defence against Qd6(for example the idea Be3 and Bf2. I also cannot give a precise analysis here because my gandalf4.32h is busy in another position. > 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. I prefer black but I am not sure if I am right. 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.