Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:45:50 09/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2001 at 17:29:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 17, 2001 at 14:31:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >Bob, take it from an FM, after gxf4 the game is very complex. >yes it's lost, but it's *not* easy. And suppose you make a passer >mistake, well in that case you still draw it, has happened before... > >However in the case of f3 e3 then it's a simplistic win. With Bh5 >you get the same endgame but even better at the board because you threaten >to create a mating attack after which it's completely game over in the >endgame with a piece up! It doesn't matter which move is best. What matters is what the program thought and why. I thought that initially you wanted to see if DB was simply overlooking Bh5 in response to f3. The way I saw things, you found this somewhat difficult move in response, and you wondered if DB saw it. When I saw that post, I wondered if it could be true that other moves lost as badly or worse, *according to the programs*. I believe that this is the case. We've seen evidence that gxf4 also produces a very bad score. People have talked a lot about preprocessors and singular extension, but to my way of thinking, that has nothing to do with anything. If there are two moves that produce a bad score at deep search depths, it doesn't matter what scores they produce at shallower search depths. I think that your implication that DB missed some tactics here is without basis. That it understood that it was losing and chose between several bad moves, is much more likely than that it is a tactical midget that can't see anything, or that it chose this move based upon an incomplete or flawed evaluation. bruce
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.