Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 21:03:10 12/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2003 at 21:57:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Looking at the lines after 8...Ncb4 I think white wins, but maybee black can holde the fort in Nce7 lines. Torstein > >> >>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.