Rein Halbersma wrote:
Do not believe the computer so much!
My toster told me that I had slight advantage after the sacrifice. Probably, it is closer to the truth than the evaluation of Kingsrow.
Of course it's a joke. I do not have a toster at all, and advantage was more than "slight".
Kingsrow is a very good program, but I do not think it is stronger than the best human player.
Three questions (assuming you are World Champion Georgiev):
Eric gave very concrete variations. I also gave some computer-assisted analysis viewtopic.php?f=85&t=2634&start=255
Where in your opinion does black have stronger continuations?
Why would human draughts players not be weaker than strong draughts computers, when in chess the computer's supremacy is undisputed?
Would you be willing to play accept a match to determine whether humans are still equivalent or better than computers?
PS the "academic" correctness of the sacrifice is of course not related to its beauty!
There are no concrete variants in this position - too many variations. And if White will not return the piece, then 20 next moves they will have material advantage. Therefore, the computer gives such evaluation. And actually all of these positions after 20 moves can be very difficult for White.
Given analysis cannot prove anything. Moves for Black don't contain any ideas and obviously weak and not logical. And with the best moves for black, perhaps in 10-15 moves Kingsrow would give advantage for black.
Of course I would like to play a match against the computer.
In draughts, human has more chances against the computer than in chess.
In chess, concrete playing begins from the first moves, and even in these cases, the computer may give an incorrect evaluation sometimes, for instance, after positional sacrifices.
And in draughts, concrete playing often begins in the second half of the game, so there is a chance to make advantage in the first half...
But this is all only a theory. Really interesting to see how it will go in practice!