Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:34:44 04/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 1999 at 04:57:48, Adnan wrote: >On April 04, 1999 at 20:49:59, Dave Gomboc wrote: > > >>Second, this whole thing might be a case of what Bent Larsen calls "long >>variation, wrong variation"! I spent another fifteen minutes or so on 20.a3 Ba5 >>21.b4 Bc7 22.Bxh7 Kxh7 23.Ng5+ Kg6 (and if anyone out there thinks that my last >>move seems stupid, there is a new edition of "The Art of Attack in Chess" by >>Vukovic out, so feel free to check out the chapter on the Classic Bishop >>Sacrifice :-) 24.Qg4 f5 25.h5+ Kh6 26.Qh4 e5 27.Nf7+ Kh7 28.Nxd8 Qxd8 29.h6 Nd5 >>30.Qxd8 Bxd8 and I'd say Black even has a slight advantage. True, there are >>many potential places for White to improve. But seeing as I have been >>procrastinating from doing homework for a while, and because you are the one >>trying to prove that White has a crushing attack after 22.Bxh7+, I'll give you >>the opportunity to come up with improvements for White. > >Wrong!! In fact, I would call your 28. Nxd8 stupid, really! You are attacking. >Why did you take the rook on d8??? What is wrong? I said there are many potential places for White to improve. Of course, move 28 is one of them. I had looked at one much earlier: 24.g4 dc!? 25.Qc2+ Nf5 26.Rce1 Kh6 27.Rxe6 fe 28.Rxe6 g6 29.gf Ne5 30.Qe4 Kh5 (30...Qd5 31.Re7, but maybe 30...Re8!?) 31.de Qd1+ 32.Kh2 Qg4 33.Rxg6 Rh8 (33...Qxh4+ 34.Qxh4 Kxh4 35. Ne4 Rg8 36.Nf6 Rg6 37.fg) 34.f3 Qxh4+ 35.Qxh4+ Kxh4 36.Ne6 I said I looked for 15 minutes, did you expect a definitive assessment? I'm not a 2800 player, I can't provide one. But I'm sure you've figured that out by now. >Play 28. dxe5 and black is busted. You have threats like e6 and h6. > >28. One variation might be: 28...dxc4 29. h6 Ng6 30. Qh5 > >and black is lost. This looks like it works. There are some earlier Black tries to deviate, but they don't seem to be saving the game. >That was simple. I guess that means you are a stronger player than I am. Or you have a strong computer program to analyze with. Or whatever. In any case, there's no need to be insulting. >Believe whatever you want, but Deep Blue in 97 was not better than 2700 at >best, or more accurately 2650. This game was from the first match, wasn't it? I don't recall making a claim that it was better than 2700 at that time. Recently somebody asked how strong Deep Blue was, and I said "2800.", but I was talking about the newer version. This is analogous to someone asking me how strong Rebel is, I would say "2600", because I assume they mean Rebel 10, not any of Rebel 6 through 9. Dave Gomboc
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.