Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: first possible example of a Blunder by Kramnik

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 05:48:00 10/26/02

Go up one level in this thread


On October 26, 2002 at 07:47:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote:

>>I did not analyze the position but it is clear that one of the following is
>>correct:
>>
>>1)The position is not lost for either side
>>2)The position is lost for kramnik but Crafty does not understand it.
>>
>>If 2 is correct then it means that it is not similiar to the kramnik-Deep Fritz
>>blunder and the sacrifice may be a desperate attempt of kramnik when he found
>>that other lines are bad.
>>
>>Uri
<snipped>
>And what do you think is the case? <g>

I do not know.

I am not a GM.
A convincing evidence that 2 is correct can be achieved only if humans can beat
chess programs with white.

I do not think that the evaluation of Crafty is a convincing evidence but I also
need more than a comment from GM's to be convinced that white is winning.

If I can see GM's beat Crafty and other programs with white from the relevant
position than the games may be a more convincing evidence.

Uri



This page took 2.55 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.