Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:57:04 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 21:33:50, Russell Reagan wrote: >On December 11, 2003 at 15:01:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I suspect Nunn's book is wrong there, but time will tell. Black has lots of >>problems with it's most often moved piece on a1 out of the game... > >Are we talking about theoretical correctness, human vs. human, computer vs. >computer, or human vs. computer? The answer may be different for each case. I >think you should define what situation you are primarily interested in (unless >you already did and I missed it). Theoretical correctness. Logic says white loses. In practice, white wins more than he loses, as black usually falls apart when hit with this without knowing the deep defenses needed. But black booked up is formidable and probably wins every game. > >For instance, computers often seem to be able to find that one saving line in >bad positions and hold on to a draw against GMs. It happens in just about every >GM vs. computer match, and we fault the GM for not "closing the deal", when in >reality it is more likely that the computer was just a superior defender and >there was no win unless the computer stumbled. The difference is, most human >players who had to defend against Kasparov/Kramnik/etc. would probably stumble >enough under the pressure for the attacker to win, while the computer has no >such problem defending in wildly complicated positions. So the correct move will >depend upon the situation.
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.