Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:37:58 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 17:12:53, martin fierz wrote: >On October 07, 2002 at 10:09:14, Ed Panek wrote: > >>GM commentator Nigel Short was >>critical of the Fritz Team's decision to resign. "At least for the thousands of >>chess fans out there who will see this game and not understand why black >>resigned," he said. "There are several long variations for white to calculate, >>many choices to make, it's not that simple. Black should have played on for >>at least 10 more moves." >> >> >> I agree. I dont think that just because Fritz evaluations drops very low that >>Fritz should resign. If the Strentgh of the computer is its ability to navigate >>long lines and make no tactical mistakes, while it takes much more work for a >>human to do this, and the eval is thinking according to perfect play...why not >>make them sweat it out. >> >>Chess is war. This is the beginning of the match. Doesnt long term implications >>of stress come into play? And if it irritates Kramnik...even better. >> >> >> >>Ed > >at the moment when kramnik played Rd5+ you can be sure that he had calculated >the win 100%. there is a simple rule in chess, which goes like this: "never >trade into a pawn endgame if you are not 100% sure of it's outcome". Not exactly. If you are not sure if you win or draw by trading to a pawn endgame and you are sure that you do not win if you do not go to the pawn endgame then you can safely trade into pawn endgame. I agree that in the case of kramnik-Fritz trading without being sure about the result is a big mistake because of the fact that Kramnik had another win. 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.