Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:08:54 08/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2003 at 15:39:12, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. Maybe you are right and I did not do statistics to see how many mistakes are because of pins and how many mistakes are because of indirect threat but it is clear that both cases are problems. > >>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. I only wanted to make clear that things are not so simple and I think that the case of indirect threat is an obvious case to consider. I think that it is going to be my last post in this thread. 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.