Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:26:43 06/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2003 at 10:39:34, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On June 28, 2003 at 09:59:30, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 28, 2003 at 08:12:37, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>4 seconds Slate. Does this mean Goliath Light 1.5 is better than Deep Blue? No. >>>Does this mean Deep Blue is better than Goliath Light 1.5? No. Does this mean >>>Goliath Light 1.5 is better for this particular position? Yes. >>> >>>:) >> >>Or maybe it means that GoliathLight is lucky to overevaluate the queen and it >>helps it in this position. > >I dont think Goliath is lucky here, it is simply a strong tactician. > >> >>The main problem of engines that cannot solve the problem fast like movei that >>may need some hours is problem to see that white is significantly better after >>the following moves: > >I dont think so. The main problem is to find 3.Bg7. Once an engine finds this >move it gives positive scores very quickly. Finding 3.Bg7 is easy for movei but the score is simply smaller than the score for 1.Qh3 so it has not this line at the root position. If I give it Rxe6 then it has no problem to have Bg7 in the main line in a short time but seeing a score that is better than the score for Qh3 takes a very long time so I am convinced that the problem of not finding 1.Rxe6 in an hour is result of positional reasons. > > >> >>1. Rxe6 fxe6 2. Bxg6 hxg6 3. Bg7 Bxg5 4. Qh8+ Kf7 5. Qh7 Rg8 6. Be5+ Kf8 7. >>Bxc7 * >> >>Uri > >1.Qh3 is also worth considering here and top programs might favour it for a long >time because of positional factors (High mobility). This means that you support my point that programs may not find 1.Rxe6 because of the line that I posted. If the score of that line is positive but not big enough to be better than Qh3 then it is a good reason not to find 1.Rxe6 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.