Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:15:39 11/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1998 at 20:24:56, James B. Shearer wrote: >On November 15, 1998 at 13:18:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Hsu memtioned in the 10 game match that most of the games were tactical busts >>because they seemed to evaluate king safety much better than the micros they >>were playing against (this reported by someone that went to one of his or >>Murray's talks). So it is certainly "possible" that they made this >>positionally, whether it is right or wrong is certainly debatable. It probably >>leads to a draw, since it was played in the game and the game definitely was >>drawn at the end, which is not far off from that move... > > What are you talking about? Kasparov was soon lost, Deep Blue then >played inaccurately (44. kf1) allowing Kasparov an obscure drawing chance which >he overlooked. > James B. Shearer What I am talking about was exactly what I said. The game was a dead draw when it ended... Just because Kasparov resigned, the actual "game" ended in a forced drawn position... Kasparov overlooked the draw after Kf1 as well as at the end of the game... But the question is, does axb5 *really* provide sufficient compensation for declining to grab the pawn? Difficult question...
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.