Author: Vine Smith
Date: 14:38:57 05/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 2002 at 10:02:22, Jon Dart wrote: >On May 11, 2002 at 04:45:11, Vine Smith wrote: > >>I think there are a couple of reasons why this line is rejected practically >>without comment in the books. Having sacrificed a piece in the opening, Black is >>looking to win by direct attack, and not to be confronted with a difficult >>technical task as in the position at move 19. Also, since there are apparently >>no really compelling moves for either side, I imagine the GMs who have >>investigated this position simply prefer White's two pieces to Black's one rook, >>and one or two pawns the less for White don't make much difference. The passer >>on c6 is more than a minor annoyance, too. > >I think you're right about this, but Rab8 instead of Ng3 doesn't leave Black in >a great position, either. At least with Ng3, Black gets to play with a Rook for >two pieces, instead of just down a piece. But probably Black should deviate at a >much earlier point. > >--Jon True, the whole piece sacrifice idea seems overly committal, and in practice does not seem to have been paying off very well for Black as of late. Maybe it's just one of these lines that humans use to confound each other, and has no place in a sober-minded program's book. Another example of the hazards of compiling from PGN databases? Regards, Vine
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.