Author: stuart taylor
Date: 09:07:53 01/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2006 at 11:58:21, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >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 NOW you've killed me!!!! LARSEN!!!!! (as white) It was bad enough without this mistake! But I'll repost it again at a later date, and test it too, if someone else doesn't. regards S.Taylor
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.