Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:31:39 05/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2003 at 05:33:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 14, 2003 at 18:53:05, Peter Berger wrote: > >>Or maybe neither? >> >>I have only looked at the analysis of game 5, move 16 so far. Let's try with >>Huebner's mainline: >> >>16. g3 Nh2+ 17. Kf2 Ng4+ 18. Ke1 Qh3 19. Rg1 Nd7 20. e4 dxe4 21. Nxe4 Qh2 22. >>Rf1 Qg2 23. Bc1 >> >>Here Huebner only gives 23. ...Nh2 when 23. ...Nf6 looks like a clear >>improvement IMHO and I think if someone has problems it isn't black. I have >>analyzed this position for some time with the help of the Fritz chessengine. >> >>This is a position Kasparov had to consider when choosing his 16th move or >>taking the draw instead, and if there really is no advantage for white here, it >>means that Huebner, a great analyzer, couldn't find anything promising after >>_weeks_ of analysis passed. > > >I can't see the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that if FRITZ gave >23... Nf6 and huebner gives only 23...Nh2, that then huebner after several >months of analysis must have a hole in his thinking? Somehow that would astonish >me. But wait please, I must analyse it with FRITZ myself before I can give you a >final verdict. :)) Heubner analysis is not convincing if he does not analyze 23...Nf6 Peter does not claim that 23...Nf6 based on his analysis with chess programs. He did not mention Fritz and I even did not check if Fritz suggested this move but I am sure that he does not say that a move is a good move only because it was suggested by a computer. 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.