Author: Howard Exner
Date: 06:36:12 02/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2000 at 08:01:12, Jason Williamson wrote: >On February 06, 2000 at 20:51:30, Howard Exner wrote: > >>[D]3r2k1/6p1/4R2p/pp1r3q/3p3N/1PbR3P/4QPP1/6K1 w - - id ban - counterplay; bm >>g2g4; >> >>At this point although Junior was down a pawn it looked like the game was at a >>stand still and was heading towards a draw. But the nice move g4 turned the game >>around. How long did Junior take to play this? >> >>Also what to programmers think of playing gambits against other computers? >>This time it worked but in general is it too risky? Do some remove gambit lines >>when entering comp vs comp tournaments? > >Just to point out, Counterplay played this game like a moron (not to take credit >away from Junior, g4 was brilliant). first of all, f6 by counterplay was just >dumb, opening the e file caused all this problems. Not to mention the clear >plan was to push the a pawn home. The black bishop controled a1, it was >virutally impossible to stop. For these rounds I was able to download the games and played over them without first looking at the final result. So it added extra enyoyment when going through the moves, as if watching live. This game was interesting from the start, given the gambit in the opening - a nice imbalance. Up to a point I was thinking as yourself that counterplay could steadily increase the pressure and possiblly win with that queenside pawn play. Yet instead it went into "let's shuffle the pieces around aimlessly" mode. I guess it was a fitting punishment for not actively pressing forward that it fell victim to g4 by Junior. > >Jason Williamson (operator of Counterplay) Are you a beta tester for Little Goliath?
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.