Author: Mark Young
Date: 18:08:43 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 20:21:23, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On July 23, 1999 at 19:21:54, Mark Young wrote: > >>rnbk3r/pp4bp/1qp2pP1/3p3B/4p2N/2P5/PPP3PP/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 1 >> >>Mel, the move a4 in this position seems to me to be a good move. White needs >>counter play on the queenside to drive blacks queen off her post at b6, which >>controls the a7-g1 diagonal and also attacks whites b2 pawn tying down whites >>bishop to the defense of this pawn and keeping it from developing, and also >>keeps white from playing o-o. I would grade the move a4 as a good and logical >>move in this position, unless you can show a refutation to this move. I did not >>see one. > >Mark, my previous response to this post was in thinking you were referring to >the other position where I played a4. I now realize you are referring to the >other game where Hiarcs considered a4 but after making the move, the score went >way down for Hiarcs to a minus. That's why I let it replay the move twice as >stated and each time it played Rf1 with a better score. Hiarcs saw trouble with >a4 and that's why it would not play the move again. I don't have the position in >front of me, but I am certain that a4 was not a good move and both Fritz and >Rebel didn't like it and Hiarcs would not repeat it, and so I feel confident in >saying Hiarcs positional learning fuction was at work here. > >Regards, >Mel If a4 is "not a good move" then how do you refute it? I could care less what a programs eval functions says, because as you know one program can say white has the advantage and on could say black has the advantage. Show or tell me why this is a bad move, telling me an eval fuction or saying Fritz would not play this move as its first choice does not show how or why or prove that a4 is a blunder and a bad move.
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.