Author: Chuck
Date: 18:51:18 05/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 1999 at 20:59:35, Mark Young wrote: >In the game played today with GM Rohde's we have another example of Rebel 10's >tactical blindness with its 26th move f4. This is just the latest example of >Rebel 10's tendancy to miss tactics that other programs understand with ease. I >understand that all programs miss some tactics from time to time, but Rebel 10's >frequency of tactical blindness is perplexing to me. It misses stuff that other >programs see in seconds, even after playing a blunder its evaluation my not drop >for many moves before understanding the danger. > >In the latest example I gave the position to Rebel 9, it had no problem seeing >that both 26. f4 and Bxb7 lose quickly and playing the correct 26. Bg2 as other >programs play. > >On the other hand even after the move 26 f4, Rebel 10 still think it has an >advantage for almost 4 mins, before seeing the error of 26. f4. > >Is this tactical blindness a bug in Rebel 10, or a justifiable design choice to >let rebel strengthen other areas of its play? Probably only Ed Schroder can answer your question, but I don't think that Rebel 10 was that much out 'on it's own'. It takes Fritz 5 better than 2 minutes on my AMD K6-2 350 to select Bg2 (I didn't officially time this). But Robert Hyatt mentions that some strong players (GM's?) stated that White is lost after Bg2 as well. I see that Bg2 relieves the threat of a Black Queen check on the 1st rank, or rather the mate threat involved there, and studying the position from there I would hazard that White might hold. If someone gets any Grandmaster analysis I would like to see it posted. Of course, I've lost games myself following grandmaster analysis before, but as this game shows, it's still the best opinion we have. Chuck
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.