Author: Peter Berger
Date: 12:43:17 09/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2001 at 15:21:26, Uri Blass wrote: >>At least they can see positive evaluation of 0.03 so they believe that Qf1 is >>better for white. > >Correction. >Yace found 0.04 pawns and not 0.03 pawns based on Dieter's post. > >Uri I believe you checked these positions with Deep Fritz- if you let it search for a short time before Qg4 you can see the line that made it go this way - that's a simple draw ( same with Yace btw) but we don't disagree anyway and I liked your analysis very much . I think it's fascinating that players of relatively low strength ( compaired to Fisher , no offense at all) can tackle the analysis of top GMs with computer aid, although the computers themselves can't do _all_ the job yet. Fascinating - if they get even stronger they might really develop into great teachers but so far they can't do this job on their own ( even in many tactical positions). Recently there has been quite a similar position posted by John Dart ( task: see the win after ...Kxf5) - unsolvable by computers IMHO but easy for a middleclass player with the _help_ of a computer. pete
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.