Author: Howard Exner
Date: 18:38:16 11/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 1998 at 19:15:45, Amir Ban wrote: >On November 25, 1998 at 17:49:38, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On November 24, 1998 at 19:13:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >>>I'll wait on Bruce to comment as he may have saved this analysis... But I >>>believe that this was one of several "defenses" we analyzed on ICC and >>>chess.net last year. And while I don't remember the specifics, I do remember >>>that we still ended at draw... And I notice his eval slipped again... As I >>>said, "rumor" has it that axb5 and Qb6 lead to the same position... we'll >>>see... >>Bruce, did you analyze the position after 36.Qb6 Rd8 37.Be4 a5 38.axb5 axb4 >>39.Rxa8 Rxa8 40.Ra6 on ICC? >> >>Uri > >This variation was discussed last October here on CCC, shortly after it was >founded. We were discussing the same subject as now, DB's thoughts on move 36. >Someone, Rob Jojodyne I think, suggested 36...Rd8 as an obvious improvement to >DB's 36...Qe7, if white plays 37.axb5. I pointed out that 37.Be4 refutes Rd8, >and he came up with a5 followed by the piece sacrifice axb4. We analyzed the >continuation for a few days and concluded it draws. I remember this thread also. He was using Lang's Genius program and said that it played this sacrificial line. You and I posed lines where we thought that white could win but there always seemed to be a perpetual lurking for black as countered by Rob J. There were many interesting twists and turns in our group efort to analyse this. > >In May, after the game they analyzed only the final position (45...resigns). >Bruce was there and so was I. Nobody was paying attention to move 36. That came >later, because of Kasparov's suspicions, and as a result of my efforts. > >Bob is confusing this with another position, probably move 45. > >Amir
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.