Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:10:22 06/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2001 at 02:43:51, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >On June 21, 2001 at 23:45:21, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 21, 2001 at 17:15:59, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>> >>> [D]4k2r/rp5p/pR4p1/4qp2/3pp1PQ/8/2P4P/R5K1 w k - 0 28 >>> >>> >>> This position is from IM Berg-GM Hector, Sigeman tournament - Malmo. >>> These two very tactical skilled Swedes had battled it out just like >>> old masters did in the 19th century. Young Emanuel Berg sacked one >>> pawn after another but, as it looked, in vain. Now, all good stories >>> give some glory to the brave one and that is also what happened here. >>> In the above position white, 4 pawns less, has the resource 28.Ra5!! - >>> with the point 28.-Qxa5 29.Qf6! (not 29.Re6+ Kd7). At the present >>> moment it looks like this 28.Ra5!! is good enough to draw the game >>> for white. >>> >>> >>> Test 1: Can your program find the move 28.Ra5!! - evals? >> >>It's a terrible [definitely losing] blunder, throwing away the rook for no >>compensation: >> > >Why do you post such crap here and in other threads??? >Please try thinking first before writing. Actually, that's my problem in the first place. Taking the rook is what a 5 year old would do. But then, you see the danger on the king side. And then, you see a way out of it. My mind just stopped right there. To confirm my suspicion, I ran two programs who both liked my choice, so I thought I was right. >28.Ra5 is a good move. Have a look at the position first. >It's not enough to give the position to a program, have a look at the score >and than writing "It's a terrible [definitely losing] blunder," I will be wrong again and again. I'm not afraid to be wrong. At least it gives people something to laugh at.
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.