Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 12:45:18 10/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1999 at 10:41:43, Albert Silver wrote:
>On October 03, 1999 at 09:32:47, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On October 03, 1999 at 04:42:40, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>>Posted by Lawrence S. Tamarkin on October 03, 1999 at 02:48:13:
>>>>
>>>>Congratulations to Rebel Century on its win against GM Scherbakov. We here at
>>>>the Marshall Chess Club Salute you! (I may just set up some match in the club,
>>>>involving an IM or GM, just for fun, but especially if Rebel company (Ed),
>>>>wants to draw a player from the NY chess mecca...
>>>
>>>You know I am always in for a challenge. And the Marshall Chess Club is
>>>quite a name to remember.
>>>
>>>>This makes me more excited about getting Rebel Century & studying with it (I
>>>>have long ago stopped playing with these programs), various positions out of
>>>>chess books, and my tournament games. Bigger book, custem levels, more
>>>>training features, test positons, utilities, etc, etc. It is definately a fantastic
>>>>bargain, that we (I), look forward too.
>>>
>>>Don't tell me about it. The data on the cd is 620 Mb. It was quite difficult to
>>>decide what should be left out as the limit is 640 Mb. How can one handle that
>>>in one year? I wonder. Seems to me DVD has the future and will be required
>>>within 2-3 years.
>>>
>>>>I hope Rebel Century will keep winning (No GM has yet lost in 30 moves or less
>>>>to it:)), and that the GM's pride will keep them coming back for more, rather
>>>>than fear scaring them away!
>>>
>>>We shortly discussed the possibility of a re-match. In principal we agreed to
>>>that but of course we have to figure out the details in email first.
>>>
>>>About the game: I am pretty impressed by the attacking style. It sacrifices
>>>a piece for a promising king attack. Then later counting the pieces on the
>>>board Rebel is behind a full rook. Still it shows +3.xx, a dream game.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>>Rebel played well, obviously. However this is _not_ a sac. A sac is where you
>>give up material for positional gain. This is a pure tactical combination as
>>it wins more material than it gives up...
>>
>
>Of course this all depends on the reasons for Rebel giving up the material in
>the first place. Objectively you're right of course, but if Rebel gave up
>material in a situation where it could NOT see the return of it's sacs but
>rather for reasons pertaining to positional elements (king highly exposed, or
>whatever) then it was a sac. If on the other hand it went into the line
>calculating the whole combination then yes, it was just (however nice) a
>combination. Ed can clear that up by giving us the eval and the main line when
>it went into it.
>
Albert Silver
Hello Albert,
If you count the number of plies from the move gxh6! until the
point the queen is won back, you'll see that it takes 10 full moves
before the black queen is lost. Furthermore, there is the 'quiet' move
Rf5!, which makes it a nice combination IMO.
I would be pleased to know what other programs think of gxh6 and how
they evaluate this position. At least I would be extremely proud when
I could execute such a combination in one of my own games!
Best regards, Jeroen
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.