On Jan 28, 5:16 am, Martin Brown
wrote:

17. Qd1-d3{82} Bc8-d7{134}

Helpbot missed a trick here. 17. .... Nxd4 18. Qxd4 Bd7 is nasty for
white.

Since both K & Q are movable targets, I did
not play for the "nasty" pin; maybe I'm not
mean and nasty enough? ;D


20. Nc3-d5{88} e6-d5{62}

Why in heavens name is it swapping a N for a P ?

*Two* pawns; White gets two pawns for
his Knight (which, as I keep telling Sanny,
is not nearly enough). As everyone knows,
a Knight is worth around 3.1415927 pawns
-- about the same as a piece of apple pi... .


The attack here is at
best illusory, at worst non-existent.
Kg2 is probably needed at this stage.

21. Bf3-d5{162} Nc6-b8{56}

I reckon 21. ... Ne7 might be more effective.

I seem to have a visual problem; I feared
the combination: 1. Bxf7+, replies, 2. Qxd7; but
of course, my reply 1 ...Rxf7 would guard the
loose piece on d7. The passive, defensive move
....Nb7 was intended to shore up my loose Bishop.



22. Bd5-e4{164} Nc4-e5{78}

But Normal is determined to keep making its position worse. Kg2 still
needed.

37. Rh4-e4{82} Be7-g5{190}

Plenty good enough to win, but Nxd4 is faster.

41. Bf2-d4{108} Rc2-c7{206}

Bd4 is another rubbish move. Only 41. Rd8+ stands any chance at all
now.

50. Kf1-g2{138} Rf7-f4{22}
51. Rd4-f4{126} g5-f4{6}

It has definitely got a death wish!

Keeping the rooks on the board and hoping that your opponent makes a
mistake out of boredom letting you snatch a pawn is the only chance
remaining here. Once the rooks are off the two passed pawns protected
by their king are invincible.

No computer "thinks" that way; even strong
programs will object to hanging a pawn for
nothing here, and unless its algorithm allows
for full-pawn sacrifices just to keep a pair of
Rooks on the board, would do this sort of
thing. GetClub does not see far enough
ahead to comprehend that the pawns will
Queen by force. Even a few moves later when
it began chucking pawns, it was only because
this gained material or else delayed the pawn
promotion, *not* as part of a strategy to enable
the possibility of a stalemate, as a clever
human player might have attempted.

Note also that near the end, the program
moved its King into the corner; it seems to be
programmed to believe this is the ideal spot
for King safety (even where the opponent has
no attackers left). In simple endgames, the
program is severely handicapped when
compared to a typical human player.

But note well how the program *did see*
the piece fork in the endgame-- the one I
decided to allow, since I was convinced the
connected passed pawns would be decisive
in themselves. It saw that potential fork
well in advance of a typical human player,
and that included me. :D

In wide-open games against humans who
prefer to play it fast and loose (think Sam
Sloan here), the program might well give a
better account of itself than in a semi-closed
game like this one, and so many others of
mine which are heavily weighted toward
strategy.


-- help bot