Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 08:58:21 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2006 at 11:53:20, stuart taylor wrote:
>In which it clearly seems analytically provable that Spaasky's play was
>faultless, yet extremely hard to see as being so, and is also very deep and
>unclear....except after great and deep analysis.
>
>But as usual, I'm not organised enough to post the position again, although I
>did atleast once before.
>
>Questions are
>1)How long does it take for Rybka to find .....rh1?
>2)And how long does it take to find .....h4?
>3)BUT, DOES it ever find the move before, which is .....h5?
>4)Then, finally, DOES it ever find (before that)......Ng4?
>
>I'm sorry I didn't put up the moves again, but anyone who is familiar with it
>will readily find the position I'm refering to.
>
>CY maybe you can ask Jack to put it up!
>
>For questions 3 and 4, I wouldn't consider it extreme to give Rybka 5 hours
>each. But even if it finds answer to q.2 with answer tro q.1 in its analysis,
>within only a few minutes, that would also be very good.
>S.Taylor
Hi Stuart
What will you say with your posting? No diagram, no FEN
string and perhaps wrong player names Spaasky vs Lasker??
Best regards
Kurt
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.