Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:09:35 09/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2001 at 16:06:15, Uri Blass wrote: >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). <snippped> >In most tactical positions they can do it I count only positions when the analysis of GM's without computers or the anlaysis of computers without GM's is wrong and I did not mean to day that in most of the tactical positions they can find errors in GM's analysis. 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.