Author: martin fierz
Date: 14:39:18 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2003 at 16:13:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 20, 2003 at 08:24:12, martin fierz wrote: > >>On December 19, 2003 at 00:37:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2003 at 17:58:13, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>[snip] >>>>10/32 28.32 4291k 151k -0.14 1...e4g3 >>>>10/32 34.99 5339k 152k 0.28 1...e4g3 1.h2g3 c8c7 2.g3f2 c7e5 >>>> 3.f2g1 e5d4 4.g1h1 d5c7 5.a4b3 e8e6 >>>> 6.h1h2 >>>>11/37 58.43 9054k 154k 0.33 1...e4g3 1.h2g3 c8c7 2.g3f2 c7e5 >>>> 3.d4f3 e5e2 4.f2g1 c5c2 5.f3e1 b4e1 >>>> 6.a4g4 e1f2 7.g1h1 e2g4 8.h3g4 >>>> >>>> >>>>A classical example of a game where evaluation is more important than 10 to 1 >>>>time handicap :) >>> >>>Yes, but _not_ the way you think. How many times do you do that sac where >>>it is _wrong_? knight for pawns is only good if it leads to an immediate >>>tactical win. Your PV isn't showing that. >> >>his PV is showing that it wins the piece back, both at depth 11 and depth 12. so >>this is not about "knight for pawns" or "bad trade". >> >>read, think, write :-) > >I tried. I can handle Nf3 and Nxg5. The f2g1 notation is way ugly and I >most likely simply failed to notice a capture when playing through it >mentally. > >I hate non-SAN output. :) hehe, i learned to play chess in england - pawn to king's bishop four, that kind of stuff <shudder>. so now i have no problem with weird notations ;-) cheers martin
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.