Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 07:14:58 02/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 1999 at 02:01:11, blass uri wrote: > >I think you are right here and 19.Na4 was not a mistake, but my idea of 16.b4 is >not bad because after a5 white may trade pieces in a5 and trade the black >bishop at e7 by Nd5 so there are no 2 bishops advantage for black. > >Uri Well you could be correct. I never said that 16. b4 was bad nor inferior to 16. Be3, either moves have its own merit and they are playable. 16. b4 requires further investigation. Perhaps Hiarcs did not consider 16. b4 because it puts its all the queenside pawns on the dark square.
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.