TalkChess.com

I would reject the term "blunder" in this case. The evals of Shredder and Ginkgo where at similar hights at that point of the game (3.5) but Ginkgo did not find the winning move. I am not even sure if this is winning or if the engines just over-value the passed and advanced pawn ...!?

Anyhow, a blunder means missing a clearly winning move - and I don't think there is ONE CLEARLY winning!

Time wasn't a problem at that point of the game as far as I remember.

And I agree with others here, to think that this would have happened and than this would have happened leads to nothing. Shredder won the WCSC - no doubt about that.
How others would have performed is completly irrelevant, they did not even compete regardless of "for free" offers, and that is loosing reputation right from the start!

Bye
Ingo

Milos wrote: Uri was just pointing out to an obvious blunder of supposedly strong engine (that also came out of nowhere, I wonder what would be its similarity with current SF, hehe)

Only for a kid like you it came out of the blue... file under 'Gromit' and 'Anaconda', when Gromit already was one of the strongest of its time.

Exactly