Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 12:36:27 07/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2002 at 14:29:52, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On July 07, 2002 at 13:41:43, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: > >This is by no means forced. And the explanation of Adams >is very clear: d5? is dubious as it opens up the position >for the white bishop. > >Besides, it is much better to look at the position and use >human chess knowledge instead of giving a mere computer line >including evaluation :-) Furthermore, in this position I put >much more trust in the super GM evaluation then in the >computer one. > >Jeroen > > >>After the above mainvariation it looks like a draw: >> >> 18 140:55 +0.77 24.Dh5 Dc7 25.Tad1 Tad8 26.Txd8 Txd8 27.Dxe5 Dxe5 28.Txe5 g6 >> 29.Te2 h5 30.a3 Lg7 31.c4 Td3 32.cxb5 >> >>Things are in chess often not so clear. >> >>Greetings >>Thomas My point was that if it where analyses you could have proven who was wriong or right! So no discusions about the mather should have been made. Regards Marc
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.