Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 14:47:33 07/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2005 at 15:57:27, William Sorin wrote: >I hate it when these damn programmers feel sorry for the human and give them the >draw in a dead lost position for the human. I can count a handful of games where >this has been done allegedly out of "respect" for the human. Is not chess >suppose to be a game of truth? [D]8/4nk1p/p1r3p1/1p1p4/3K2P1/1P2N2P/P7/4R3 w - - 0 40 During the game, I gave the continuation 40.Nxd5 Nxd5 41.Kxd5 Rc2 42.a4! =. The 42.a4! move was misevaluated by fruit 2.1 which I was using to analyze, but I nevertheless understood the position to be drawn. Later Anthony Cozzie gave Zappa's analysis with the correct evaluation of 0.0 that included the 42.a4! move. Very impressive for an engine. It might be argued that the draw agreement was a little early, but surely Ehlvest understood the Rook ending at least as well as I did. A matter of technique as they say. I don't claim to have the greatest technique in the world, but I do understand--that--position.
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.