Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:25:15 09/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2003 at 02:42:01, Derek Paquette wrote: >On September 28, 2003 at 00:15:02, Mark Young wrote: > >>H. Pillsbury - Em. Lasker >>After whites 17 move of f5 >> >>[D]2r2rk1/pp3pp1/4bb1p/q2p1P1Q/3P4/2N5/PP4PP/1K1R1B1R b - - 0 1 >> >>Here GM Kasparov gives 17..Rxc3 a (!!) mark. With the comment that the move >>Rxc3!! is beyond the powers of even a strong computer. >> >>Is Rxc3 really beyond the powers of a strong computer? Or is the move Rxc3 not >>worthy of a (!!) because it leads only to a draw. This is what the computers see >>after blacks 17..Rxc3. >Kasparov likes to say a lot of things, same with Vlad. >These guys both claim that Junior and Df7 are stronger than DBII, >but DBII only had a 4000 position openning book compared to hundreds of >thousands to low millions of these others... >no comparison really 4000 positions were only the manually generated book. I also see no reason to compare opening book that are the unimportant thing. The important thing is that DBII did not play a single game since 1997. I see no reason to believe that DB2 is better. You cannot claim superiority after you decide to avoid playing. Uri 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.