Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 16:11:42 11/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 1998 at 14:22:59, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 16, 1998 at 13:52:12, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>On November 15, 1998 at 21:15:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>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...
>>
>>I think James may be referring to the assertion that after Kh1 instead of Kf1,
>>Black is busted.
>>
>>Dave Gomboc
>
>Is this a "done deal"? IE general consensus was after Kf1 black had a draw but
>overlooked it. After Kh1 he didn't. But what about later? IE if DB had played
>Kh1 earlier did the potential draw at the end evaporate? And of course, there
>is the question of whether it was totally drawn at the end anyway. The lines
>everyone looked at where white had a significant advantage ended in repetition.
>But there were other suggested lines (giving up the bishop, etc) where white's
>advantage was much less... but perhaps winning (or losing of course..)
>
>my point was that either move (axb or .. ) might well end up a draw here.
>because of white's kingside being open to queen checks with an escape from
>them being very difficult to find... so maybe axb5 could have been a king-
>safety related move, or just another move that pushed the draw off a bit to
>hide it...
Your original post suggested axb5 "probably" led to a draw because if
Kasparov hadn't blundered with 45. ... resigns he could have drawn. However if
you are going correct Kasparov's errors you should correct Deep Blue's as well.
If Deep Blue had played 44. kh1 instead of 44. kf1 the draw which Kasparov
missed would not have been present, meaning he would have been lost. So if you
want to claim axb5 leads to a draw you must find an earlier blunder by Kasparov.
James B. Shearer
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.