Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Saavedra study wrong?!

Author: h.g.muller

Date: 03:19:30 02/09/06

On February 09, 2006 at 05:32:46, Joseph Tadeusz wrote:

>According to this endgame site: http://chess.jaet.org/cgi-bin/dtx
>optimal play doesn't use underpromotion at all!
>
>It gives this line as optimal: 1.c7! Rd6+ 2.Kb5! Rd5 3.Kb4 Kb2 4.c8=Q!

But this is a deviation by black, which merely serves to delay the checkmate. If
underpromotion were forbidden, black would prefer the original defense, because
that would then lead to a draw. So underpromotion remains crucial for the
qualification of this position, even if it is not in the branch of optimal
defense.

Re: Saavedra study wrong?! Joseph Tadeusz 04:24:29 02/09/06
- Re: Saavedra study wrong?! h.g.muller 05:13:27 02/09/06
  - Re: Saavedra study wrong?! Maurizio De Leo 13:43:27 02/09/06
    - Re: Saavedra study wrong?! h.g.muller 15:07:54 02/09/06
      - Re: Saavedra study wrong?! Yakov Konoval 23:47:25 02/09/06
        
        Re: Saavedra study wrong?! h.g.muller 01:09:07 02/10/06
        
        Re: Saavedra study wrong?! Yakov Konoval 02:45:43 02/10/06
        
        16 x 16 ??? h.g.muller 11:22:29 02/10/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? Yakov Konoval 01:18:35 02/11/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? Duncan Roberts 09:52:14 02/12/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? h.g.muller 01:53:29 02/11/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? Marc Bourzutschky 09:04:45 02/12/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? h.g.muller 05:42:10 02/13/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? Marc Bourzutschky 03:40:08 02/14/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? h.g.muller 13:41:03 02/14/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? Duncan Roberts 09:45:38 02/12/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? Marc Bourzutschky 12:09:41 02/12/06
        
        Re: 16 x 16 ??? Duncan Roberts 12:08:11 02/13/06

This page took 0.01 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.