Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:39:53 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 15:33:38, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On March 16, 2004 at 23:06:38, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On March 16, 2004 at 22:52:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>maybe I missed something, but how does a group of shallow searches show that the >>>position is "wrong"??? >> >>If you read them, it is immediately obvious. >> >>The game was misplayed, with several gaffes, including a complete blunder. > > >How do you explain Hiarcs 9 and CM9K-SKR finding the solution after some minutes >? The scores are close. Not the least bit surprising. However, I think they chose the wrong pony. >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?354688 >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?354694 > >Please, let computers think for more than 1 hours before drawing conclusion ... It is enough to see that the alternative move is as good. And the one hour analysis clearly refutes the moves played in the game, and is therefore good enough. What has been shown is that the game was flawed. The best move appears to be not quite as good as an alternative. It might possibly be better, but I have seen no demonstration of that yet. >>The alternative move Qh3 is clearly as good or better than the stated move.
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.