Author: Chessfun
Date: 06:09:00 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 07:29:44, George Sobala wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 00:49:55, martin fierz wrote: > >>On October 13, 2002 at 22:08:01, robert flesher wrote: >> >>>I believe that kramnik was afraid of the calculation power of the computer in >>>the 4 of 3 majority endgame. These endgames even though theory suggests a draw >>>with best play are very complex and can often lead to a win for the majority. >>>Many possibilities could have happened. Perhaps a queen and pawn versus >>>queen....OUCH then there is trouble when its the tablebases that scare the hell >>>out of anyone. Kramnik cracked he is human. >> >>4-3 with rooks or queens should be a draw. i don't think kramnik was afraid of >>that! >> >>aloha >> martin > >But this ending had knights too - and computers are pretty scarey opposition >with queens AND knights. Calculating endings for Knights, Bishops or Rooks is >all the same to a computer, but even SuperGMs can struggle to visualise the >tactical threats posed by a Q+N pair in 5 or 6 moves time. Q+N positions are a >lot less "logical" than those involving just Rooks and Bishops. [D]6k1/N4p2/1p4pp/q3n3/4Q3/4P1PP/P4PK1/8 b - - 0 33 Kramnik could simply have played 33...Qxa7 34. Qxe5 Qxa2 35. Qb8+ Kh7 36. Qxb6 That assumes he wanted to simply get the knights off. In fact it seemed to me, simply another way for the hoover to get into a drawing endgame. It still seems to me this would have been far better for Kramnik than 33...Qxa2 34. Nc8 Qe6 35. Nxb6 where the knights are still on. Sarah.
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.