Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:06:15 09/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2001 at 15:43:17, Peter Berger wrote: >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. The computers can still do job that Fisher could not do. Fisher claimed that 20.a3 is the losing error and I disagree here because after 20.a3 Qb7 21.Rh5(a move that fisher missed but Deep Fritz has no problem to find) I did not see the advantage for black(Deep Fritz gave some advantage for black but I remember that the advantage disapeared when I went forward in the main line). 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). In most tactical positions they can do it but positions when they see in few seconds that the analysis of GM's was wrong are not the interesting positions. Uri
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.