Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:54:03 09/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2001 at 13:26:42, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 09, 2001 at 08:45:40, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On September 09, 2001 at 08:27:50, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>White can play better earlier, like 32.Bg5, and it's black advantage but not >>>more. >> >>Uri pointed this out to me too and I gave him a line >>after 32.Bg5 where black gains at least a pawn advantage. >> >>I'm sure it can be improved upon. The problem is that it's >>hard to do so as the position is very hard. >> >>>All this has been pointed out before. What we are asked to believe here is not >>>only that DT saw a (non-existent) combination no one else can find, but that so >>>did Cray Blitz. >> >>The fact that the combination does not exist is your opinion and >>nothing else. Just like your opinion about DB. You can keep denying >>everything and claim nobody proved you wrong. >> >>Cray Blitz did not see the combination. I saw part of it, too late. >> >>-- >>GCP > >Arguing with analysis is more productive. > >Perhaps it's possible that the +2.xx was actually based on positional factors? >It sounds like Murray read the screen and made a casual comment. In that case, >DT's idea of +2.xx might be equivalent to some other program's +1.xx. > >Dave The problem is that I cannot prove even +1.xx and even in the last positions in the line that I got by email I can see only 0.xx evaluation(I do not care about the fact that black has material advantage of 1 pawn in the end of the line because programs can see that white has some positional compensation for the pawn). Singular etensions are extensions for things that you can prove. If in almost every node there are 2-3 logical lines then it is clear that singular extensions can prove nothing. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.