rwbean: "I now had a lead of 2.5/0.5 and needed only one draw in the last three games to win my bet. I had demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that my do-nothing strategy worked to perfection, so I considered it worthwhile to experiment in game four by attempting to beat the program at its own game, playing sharp, tactical chess and endeavoring to out analyze CHESS 4.7. This was the result."7... g6 already gets Black a big advantage. Not in Levy's notes.
24... ♖h3 is clearly winning. In his notes he gives 24... ♗g3 a question mark, says "24... ♗c8 is better". He doesn't comment on the SF suggestion 24... ♗c8 25. ♗g1 - just 25. ♔e2 and ♘e2.
34... ♖xe3 35. ♔xe3 c4 is drawing. Levy: "34... ♖xe3 35. ♔xe3 cxd4+ 36. ♔d3! gives White a won bishop ending." Yes, it would, if Black was stupid enough to play 35... cxd4+?? ...
Levy: "38.. ♔f8?? 38... ♔e8 39. ♖xg7 d3 40. ♔e3 ♖b1 would probably have been sufficient to win".
First, the White ♔ is on g3 so it can't play ♔e3 in one move ... second 39. ♖xg7?? d3 would win ... third 39. ♖a4 would draw.
Levy: "39... ♖d3+?? An idea that fails because of White's 48th move. Correct is 39... ♗c5 40. ♖xd5 d3 41. ♗xc5+ bxc5 when CHESS 4.7 would almost certainly not have been able to win; it may even have lost because of the passed ♕-♙".
Actually, SF has 39... ♖d3+ as Black's best move, but White is just winning from then on.
In the line, White plays 42. b3 ♔f7 43. g5 and the White ♙s just roll on through. Crushing.
Levy: "47... ♔e7?? The final blunder. I had still not noticed White's next move and assumed that the program was going to play 48. ♗xc5+ ... after 47... ♔f7 I don't think the program could have won."
After 47... ♔f7 48. ♗xc5 bxc5 49. g5 and the White ♙s just roll through. So ♔e7 and ♔f7 are about the same eval, both lose. I even remember playing through this game at the time (probably about 1992) and thinking Levy's evaluation there was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too optimistic.
Kibitzing
