Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:15:23 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 17:37:34, Robert Hyatt 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. > >That's OK. The Nolot positions are not about the "games". They are about the >positions and the "best" move for each... Indeed. But the nolot positions are carefully analyzed and you can easily find the explanations. I think that probably all of those are correct (along with some other tough sets like LCT II). This position is not one of them. >>The alternative move Qh3 is clearly as good or better than the stated move. > >Again, based on what? Some Nolot positions might take _days_ for a program to >see the winning move... Looking at the computer output. It is obvious that the actual game was flawed. From looking at the proposed trajectories, the queen move is better. If I see a *reason* why the rook capture is superior, I may believe it. So far, nothing but handwaving.
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.