Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 15:00:04 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 17:04:44, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>>>>>"Boris Alterman dismissed a version that won big against a well-known SSDF star >>>>>>>as being based on nothing more than cheap tactics, and recommended a version >>>>>>>based on a match that it actually lost". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This is of course absolute nonsense and probably a pure lie. Of course it is >>>>>>only a way to say that it is weaker then the other top-engines and we hope to >>>>>>sell it on the merits of the Kasparov match. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bertil > >This comment was _way_ over the top, Bertil. So you just swallowed it!? He crushed a top-program with "cheap tactics" but he choosed another version that lost. It was only good in sicilian but won 30 to 20 in a 50 game match. In the next sentence he says that the top programs on the list are weak positionally (meaning that they must be very strong tactically) Other programs are much better positionally, no examples. Bertil > >>Many have played out this line and the results clearly favors white. White was >>better. I believe almost everyone believes white was clearly better but missed >>tactically. > >Talk is cheap. Post analysis. (I did.) > >Besides, irrespective of its long-term value, ...Bxh2 was a good TN. > >Dave
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.