Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:16:20 07/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2001 at 07:25:53, Sune Larsson wrote: >On July 23, 2001 at 07:06:40, Mark Young wrote: > >>You should not post positions as "Testposition" when there are more then one way >>to solve the position in a winning way, this is not the first example I have >>found of the positions you have posted, but since I can prove to you with GM >>anaylsis on this one, it was time. > > > Thanks for your remark. I didn't know about Kramnik's comments to this game. > Very interesting. Then again, there are many ways of "testing a position". > If a GM shows a winning continuation in a game - and some computer program > displays another line, as convincing or even more, I find that very interesting > also, don't you? Mark well, in this specific case I never wrote anything about > 24.Bxa6 being *the only* move in this position. For me it feels vital to test > different program's evaluations after Kramnik's 24.Bxa6. The compensation > for the piece is to be found in my comments but do the programs have this > knowledge? If not, what could be done do add it? Many classical test positions have multiple solutions. Often, a test position with only one known solution will have another discovered. I think that this may make the position even more interesting, especially if the new solution is beautiful.
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.