Author: Matt Frank
Date: 06:31:21 03/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 05, 1999 at 08:27:05, blass uri wrote: > >In the last game against Hiarcs7 Fritz5 sacrificed 2 pawns. > >The first sacrifice was when Fritz5.32 played 24....Ne4 instead of Ne8 in the >following position to get pair of bishops(the main line of Hiarcs7 showed that >it expected this sacrifice): > >1r4k1/1b1r1ppp/p1p1pn1b/2PpP3/1P1P4/2BB2PP/P1N5/4RRK1 b - - 0 1 > > >The second sacrifice was when Fritz5.32 played a5 after 25.Bxe4 dxe4 26.Rxe4 Bg5 >27.Na3 to get the bishop to the game. > >I believe that the position is drawn but Fritz5.32 surprisingly won the game >because of mistakes of Hiarcs7 in the endgame(Hiarcs7 wanted to win the drawn >game). > >I think that a good idea for the grandmaster in the match against Hiarcs7 may be >to go for a dead draw endgames and hope for mistakes of Hiarcs7. > >Uri There are all sorts of ways to plan for a win. I think that finding misevaluations by the computer is one of the best strategies. Another is to hope to play into the endgame even and outplay the machine in a drawn endgame (I think this could be dangerous for the GM). However, a more fruitful approach would be to come out of the mid game with an advantage obviously. I'm not so sure that the GM should rely on what he thinks might be faulty evals by the prog. The implication of what you have said is that a majority of drawn endgames will be mishandeled by Hiarcs. That strategy may be delusional and very dangerous for the GM. Regards, Matt Frank
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.