Author: Harald Faber
Date: 21:48:44 02/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2004 at 00:35:34, Harald Faber wrote: >On February 03, 2004 at 19:33:41, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On February 03, 2004 at 19:28:38, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>Instead of asking Qc7 ?? Why don't you explain why CSTal II lost 4 straight to >>>an inferior program with less knowledge? >> >>I see no sense in talking about the next data when not having an answer to the >>first data. > > >You know the answer. Bxh6 is no forced win. It is speculative. This time it >worked in the end. Maybe some other program would have defended better and draw >or even won with black. All in all the clear majority of CSTal's sacs do NOT >work... I forgot to mention: Did you check whether Qc7 with the following Bxh6 is avoided by other progs? Is the Bxh6 sac sound and a forced win? Just check with your brain and some prog, maybe you found 2 test positions, the first to avoid Qc7 and then to find Bxh6. Even if all this true, Shredder like all other top progs is no Methusalem knowing the truth in EACH position. Such things can happen. But Shredder is on top because such things are pretty seldom. In the past Shredder had some problems with the own king security. I don't know if this is still another typical example. My impression was that this behaviour decreased significantly in the later two or three versions.
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.