Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:41:02 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 I agree 100% with your definition. I tried the position on Crafty and it has a huge score after the move, and sees a + in material alone, not counting the exposed king stuff... >> >>> >>>>Larry - the chess software addict!
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.