Author: Mark Young
Date: 22:42:47 08/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2004 at 01:33:12, Hristo wrote:
>On August 10, 2004 at 01:10:45, Mark Young wrote:
>
>>On August 09, 2004 at 23:47:27, Hristo wrote:
>>
>>>On August 09, 2004 at 22:03:47, Mark Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 09, 2004 at 18:13:06, Hristo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 09, 2004 at 15:37:33, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>An interesting game in which it looked as if Pro Deo 1.0 would
>>>>>>win. But Ed Schröder's program missed somewhere the win and later
>>>>>>avoided the draw.
>>>>>
>>>>>33. Rxd7+
>>>>>seems to be better than the 33. Qe7+
>>>>>
>>>>>[D]rbN3r1/3R1k2/p3pp2/4n2q/NQ6/PPR1P1P1/5P1P/6K1 b - -
>>>>>
>>>>>Is it not?
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Hristo
>>>>
>>>>If you would have read what Kurt posted. You will see he already thinks it is
>>>>better.
>>>
>>>But I didn't and came up with the same conclusion after going through the game
>>>by hand.
>>
>>I know. So you wasted your time
>
>I had fun and felt pretty good when I discovered 33. Rxd7, by myself.
>
>>looking at the same position, and asking a
>>question that is answered in the original post. Not very productive :)
>
Actually it feels even better now, since *my chess programs* analysis might turn
out to be correct.
The redundancy aspect, of my action, is less important, since I enjoyed the
position.
Now it reads right. ;] Just Kidding
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"33. Rxd7+ Nxd7 34. Qe7+ Kg6 35. Qxd7 {was stronger but strange: in
>>>>the analysis mode Pro Deo 1.0 would always play 33.Rxd7;"
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.