Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:39:12 08/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2003 at 09:55:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>I do not find something illogical in the original explanation >>>> >>>>I think that there are good rules not to extend checks but the rule that was >>>>used was not good enough and you may need more conditions not to extend in order >>>>not to do the mistake of not extending important moves. >>> >>>Well, as soon as you have found some rules please post. >> >>Checker is a lone attacker, undefended but attacked by non-pinned piece..? >>Happens all the time I think, just print incheck() positions from the tree. >> >>-S. > >not good enough because pins are not the main problem here and I suspect that >indirect threats may be a bigger problem. No. >I do not want to discuss it(I already have one rule when not to extend checks >but I plan later to find more rules and telling other people about them meaning >losing my relative advantage). If you don't want to discuss it, why do you post on the thread? -S. >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.