Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:00:18 05/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1998 at 02:06:01, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On May 10, 1998 at 18:51:35, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>24.b4? this move is a horrible positional concession. Lucky for DB >>most PC >> programs play it too. >>26. b5? this is horrible. a nitwit move. programs without that much >>knowledge >> play it too. Few short term tactical advantages are >>preferred over >> long term positional terms which tell it that it leads to >>a horrible position. >> >>All the other ? marks of DB in game IV are of no use for me, but say >>enough. > >This is garbage. The plan of b2-b4-b5 is !!, not ??. Deep Blue is >looking for counterplay against Kasparov's king. If it doesn't get >something happening it is just going to be crushed. Besides on my own chessinsight i'm relying on the analyses of Seirawan, published June ICCA 97, you are GM too, or basing on other GM's apart from Kasparov who may not join this discussion, unless he publices proof like main lines and stuff why it is good? Even if b4 is a good move, can you comment on all the other ? moves i wrote about, like the horrible Bxg6?, which is played clearly because of lacking simple positional knowledge. Most programs don't even CONSIDER Bxg6? When i do a quiescencesearch at Bxg6 Diep already thinks Bxg6 worsens the position. Greetings, Vincent >Dave Gomboc
This page took 0.02 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.