Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:15:23 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 08:07:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On February 07, 2003 at 02:23:32, Amir Ban wrote:
>
>>[Event "X3D man-machine match"]
>>[Site "New York City"]
>>[Date "2003.02.05"]
>>[Round "5"]
>>[White "*Kasparov, Garry"]
>>[Black "*Deep Junior 8"]
>>[Result "*1/2-1/2"]
>>
>>1. d4 Nf6
>>
>>{Enough Semi-Slav for this match}
>>
>>2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Ne2 Re8 8. O-O Bd6 9. a3
>>
>>{We are out of book here}
>>
>>10... c6 10. Qc2 Bxh2+ 11. Kxh2 Ng4+ 12. Kg3
>>
>>{All this was surprising, to say the least. Kasparov raised his eyebrows at move
>>10, but took the bishop without much thought. He played Kg3 derisively, looking
>>left and right, as if asking "Is this serious ?". I understand why: the pattern
>>of this sacrifice and what happens next is well-known. With black's pieces
>>undeveloped and no other supporting feature in black's position what is there to
>>consider ? and moreover, how can it succeed ? Good questions, but not the kind
>>that Deep Junior asks itself}
>>
>>12... Qg5
>>
>>{from here on all evaluations are 0.00}
>
>
>
>That is impossible! I don't believe you. Look at 16.g3. How could DJ always be
>.00???????????????????????????????????????????????????
It is simple
If the computer evaluates the position after 16.g3 as worse for white it can be
0.00 and there are programs that evaluates it as worse for white so nothing
impossible(it is no news that programs often sacrifice material for positional
reasons).
Uri
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.