Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:53:28 11/08/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2005 at 18:06:56, Uri Blass wrote:
>On November 07, 2005 at 17:05:47, Paul Jacobean Sacral wrote:
>
>>On November 07, 2005 at 16:29:44, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>I do not know which move is best and it is possible that tablebases may prove
>>>that not taking the knight may lead to a shorter mate.
>>
>>After Rxh5 gxh5, we have 15 pieces on the board and I guess we will not see a
>>tablebase analysis for this as long as we are alive.
>>
>>When Kozirev played 28.Rxh5!!, he saw that he will win knight and rook (a3) for
>>his rook, and black will have no officers at all while white has one rook and
>>wins easily. This is the point. If you cannot accept that this is an outstanding
>>example of chess beauty, you probably should quit chess at all. Statistics about
>>1-0 and 0-1 are not chess, moves like Rxh5!! are chess. A good engine may not
>>find Rxh5 but still win, but the excellent engine will find Rxh5 and win
>>brilliantly!
>>
>>Yours truly Paul J. Sacral
>
>I disagree
>
>Even without Rxh5 I do not see how black can free the rook after a move like
>Rb2.
Being a rook up in a limited number of moves really is very clear. I see no
better solution. Others may wihn, but since you will be tying down your rook
with Rb2, it will be a battle of rook vs. knight, and while it may win, it won't
be anywhere nearly so clear (i.e. fast and straightforward)..... unless you have
a line or two to support it.
Note that I could be wrong, but having analyzed and looked at it, with my feeble
human skills, I believe the issue is that it simply is a tough position for
engines.
>strength of chess engines has nothing to do with beauty.
>
>chess beauty is clearly irrelevant in evaluating chess engines.
Obviously.
Albert
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.