Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:03:48 12/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2001 at 15:15:34, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >On December 27, 2001 at 14:40:21, Martin Müller wrote: > >>Dear Thomas, >> >>As your posting's only purpose is to say that someone's chess knowledges are not >>good enough, I consider it as inappropriate. It does not contribute anything to >>find out where S6 went wrong. Even if the statements made by Uri would be >>incorrect, it would be much more useful to argue with concrete facts instead of >>telling here to a person in a pretty ungentle manner that he is not qualified. >> >>Kind regards >>Martin > >Dear Martin, > >you mean we should discuss with uri this position ? > >[D]4q1rk/p2b2r1/1p1p1n2/2pP1ppp/2P1p3/P1P1P2P/1RQBBPP1/5RK1 w - - > >I think it would be more interesting to look at move 18. by shredder and suggest >the better move 18.a2-a4 > >Greetings Thomas I agree that 18.a3-a4 that give the white bishop more squares was probably better. I criticized shredder for wasting a lot of tempos I gave the example of Be2-f3-e2 and I agree that it is not the only example The queen travel:Qb3-a4-c2-a4-b3-a2-b1-c2 means wasting of many tempos and it is also was not good. Yace(only material) also found after some hours that white already lost material before move 45 and the question what is the point when computers can see that white is losing material is now reduced to the first 44 moves. It is clearly possible that answering the question is too hard for programs even after hours I believe that white could do better in the game also by trading queens 27.Qxd7. 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.