Author: John Merlino
Date: 12:51:26 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 15:12:24, martin fierz wrote: >On October 09, 2002 at 15:07:16, John Merlino wrote: > >>On October 09, 2002 at 11:01:45, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>>On October 09, 2002 at 05:02:15, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>http://chessmaster.ubi.com/NR/exeres/DDFE83D9-77B9-40D8-852F-EA1D1B982B28.htm >>>> >>>>The analysis seems very interresting, but could we get the analysis in pgn >>>>format? >>>>It's way easyer to look at it while browsing the game >>>> >>>>Thanks >>> >>> >>>There's a big error in the analysis. In game 3, 58...f2+ was indeed losing as >>>stated, but Black had at least a draw with 58...Rf4! The article says Black was >>>lost anyway. >> >>I would not necessarily call this an error. It appears to be Yasser's opinion >>that Black is lost after the rook sacrifice. He is probably in the minority with >>this opinion, but this opinion does have the advantage that the result of the >>game itself bears it out. > >...which only makes it worse! that is no advantage at all, that's just >commenting according to result, which is a common error. >there is another error in that Qh1+ instead of ..f3 will draw, and it's not even >mentioned in the analysis. yasser just didnt look at some critical lines and you >say that that is an advantage?? > >aloha > martin I was not saying anything about the analysis being correct or incorrect, because I was saying that it appears to be his opinion that the game is lost after the rook sacrifice. This is obvious given his comments: "difficult to fathom" "the best he can achieve following his Rook sacrifice" I AM sure that he looked at the critical lines. Yasser is a pro. jm
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.