Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 15:40:47 09/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2001 at 18:02:05, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 09, 2001 at 17:46:53, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>I don't think it is the case that Uri and I (or even Amir) are unwilling to >>accept concrete analysis that demonstrates a large advantage. > >I never said you would. You would fall through pretty quickly >if you did. The problem is that the concrete analysis can be >huge enough that we'll never agree on all variants. > >>The Hiarcs >>analysis you mentioned sounds interesting -- if it's coming up with +1.7 after >>32.Bg5, that sounds quite promising for your viewpoint. Of course, I want to >>see the variation! :-) > >I have another try with black that is at 1.46 now. I couldn't >recontruct the lost line yet :( > >I'm trying to find the key moves and key ideas. I'll sum up >what I get in a new thread. > >-- >GCP Stick it in the thread under Roy's analysis. Then it's all in the same place and I won't have to hop around so much. :-) The analysis might seem big, but DT2 was not really all that much faster than what we can do now. What I mean by this is that with some back and forth of analysis and maybe a few overnight crunches it should become reasonably clear whether there is justification for such a large score or not. Dave P.S. If I recall correctly, both DT2 and Hiarcs use Pawn=1.28. Ed told CCC that Rebel uses Pawn=0.75, I got the impression that Junior was about the same (maybe even lower?) Perhaps "+2.xx" looks crazy to Amir because his own program would give +1.5 instead in the same circumstance.
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.