Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:08:17 11/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>Thanks for posting the main variation. I clearly remember the end position >>again. Based on this impressive main variation I can come to no other >>conclusion other then that Deep Blue must have a speculative king safety. >I'm not ruling this out as an hypothesis, but please tell me: How does a >speculative king safety agree with moves such as g5 in the 1st game, b4 in the >4th game, and a generally solid style throughout the match ? Every engine has different styles. After game-1 which was more or less lost on king safety (note 13..g5?! 28..f5?! and 30.f4!) they (perhaps) decided to set the machine to aggressive to avoid positions as in game-1 which explains game-2 and the sacrificing 36.Qb6 <>39..Qe5 main variation. >>The other explanation, a bug, sounds not fair to the Deep Blue team. >Actually bugs, or general malfunction during this part of the game, is quite >high in my list of possible explanations. There are a lot of strange things >going on. Here's one of them (the PV for iteration 10): >36. Qb6 Rab8 37. axb5 Rab8 38. Qxa6 e4 39. Bxe4 Qe5 40. Bf3 Rd8 >41. Qa7 Qxc3 42. Bh5 >Question: how to explain the appearance of the move 41.Qa7 in the PV ? 41.Qa7 is a plausible move for a speculative engine. It prevents Qe3+ - Ed - >Amir
This page took 0.01 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.