Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:11:39 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2000 at 22:26:03, Christophe Theron wrote:
>On October 08, 2000 at 18:29:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On October 07, 2000 at 21:23:50, Albert Silver wrote:
>>
>>>On October 07, 2000 at 10:50:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello here an attacking position for tiger:
>>>>
>>>>[D]2rr2k1/pp3pp1/4b3/2qNp1b1/4P3/1B1Q4/PPP5/1K3R1R w - -
>>>>Qf3!! Diepeveen - H.H. Hagen, corr. game
>>>>
>>>>Qf3 is a simple tactical win at the king side. Diep has no probs
>>>>with it and after a few hours score goes even up to nearly 2 pawns
>>>>for Qf3, thereby being pawns better as other moves.
>>>
>>>Simple tactical win? Are you sure? It's possible this wins, but it is hardly
>>>simple. Your opponent helped you greatly by playing Bxd5 allowing the very nice
>>>shot Bxd5 (kudos for seeing it of course). What would you have played after
>>>1.Qf3 Rc6 2.Qh5 Bh6 3.Qxe5 Rdc8 instead of 3...Bxd5? I didn't see any killer
>>>blows, but perhaps I didn't look deep enough.
>>>
>>>Still, you wished to see Tiger Gambit's attacking ability, so here is an
>>>impressive game played yesterday on the server. BTW, I should be fair in
>>>pointing out that there are plenty of counter examples of it exaggerating and
>>>then losing, but the game does show the enormous promise of Gambit IMO. Frankly,
>>>when you look at it, it's hard to believe White was played by a program.
>>>
>>>Time control was 40 min/KO (no increment)
>>>
>>>[Event "?"]
>>>[Site "?"]
>>>[Date "7/10/2000"]
>>>[Round "?"]
>>>[White "SubtleOne"]
>>>[Black "UltraMaster"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[WhiteElo "2530"]
>>>[BlackElo "2474"]
>>>[Opening "E15 Queen's Indian: Nimzovich Variation"]
>>>
>>>1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Nbd2 Bb7 6.Bg2 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.O-O d6 9.Nxd4
>>>Qc7 10.b3 a6 11.Bb2 Be7 12.f4 Nc6 13.Nc2 O-O 14.g4 Nd7 15.g5 Nc5 16.Rf3 e5
>>>17.Rh3 Bc8 18.f5 Bxg5 19.Nb1 Ne7 20.Nc3 Bf4 21.Qh5 h6 22.Nb4 Bb7 23.f6 gxf6
>>>24.Nbd5 Nxd5 25.Nxd5 Bxd5 26.exd5 Nd7 27.Rf1 Rfe8 28.Rxf4 exf4 29.Qxh6 Qc5+
>>>30.Kf1 Re1+ 31.Kxe1 Qg1+ 32.Kd2 Qxg2+ 33.Kc3 Qg7 34.Qxf4 Ne5 35.Rg3 Ng6 36.Qxd6
>>>Re8 37.Kd3 Qh8 38.Qc6 Rf8 39.Qxf6 Qxf6 40.Bxf6 Re8 41.d6 Re6 42.Be7 Kh7 43.Rxg6
>>>Rxg6 44.d7 {UltraMaster resigns} 1-0
>>>
>>>An impressive game for a program.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, it is hardly infallible, and in a 15min/KO game after saccing
>>>the bishop on h7 (so White is down a piece for the moment), reached the
>>>following position:
>>>
>>>[D]1rb2r2/p2n1pp1/4p1k1/1p1pP1N1/1nq2P2/2N5/PPP3PP/2KRQ2R w - -
>>>
>>>On a fluke of intuition, I found a stronger move than the one played by Gambit.
>>>The programs I tested it on take a long time to see it, so it probably makes a
>>>good test position. To leave you the pleasure of finding it, I placed the answer
>>>below in a P.S.
>>
>>about 10 mins for DIEP to fail high. Quite long to research though.
>>Yet this is a beancounting combination.
>>
>>The Qf3!! move is a bit more as just beancounting. it's about control
>>of the board and especially about not being a preprocessor.
>
>
>You should consult about your preprocessor obsession. Looks like it's getting
>worse month after month.
>
>
>
>>Qg3 wins anyway. played at 3 ply by diep!
>
>
>What a smart program you have.
>
>
>
>>I'm still missing a search output at the Qf3!! position. Qf3 is
>>an attacking move. how's tiger doing at it?
>
>
>
>Here is the output after Qf3:
>
>N6 0.32s Qf8 Qh5 Bh6 Rfg1 Kh7 Qxe5 -3.22
>N7 2.30s Rc6 Qh5 Bh6 Nf6+ Kh8 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Bxb3 cxb3 Rxf6 Rxf6 -3.69
>N7 2.80s Bh6 Qh5 Kf8 Qxe5 Re8 Qh5 Qd4 -3.34
>N8 4.00s Bh6 Qh5 Rc6 Rfg1 Kf8 Qxe5 Rdc8 Rg2 -3.30
>N9 7.57s Bh6 Qh5 Rc6 Qh4 Ra8 Ne7+ Kf8 Nxc6 Bxb3 cxb3 Qxc6 -3.50
>N10 20.70s Bh6 Qh5 Rc6 Qh4 Ra8 Ne7+ Kf8 Nxc6 Bxb3 cxb3 Qxc6 -3.50
>N11 50.25s Bh6 Qh5 Kf8 Qxe5 Kg8 Rfg1 Kf8 Rg2 Ke8 Rxh6 gxh6 Nf6+ Ke... -3.80
>N12 216.79s Bh6 Qg3 Bxd5 exd5 Qe3 Qh2 Rc7 Rfg1 Kh7 d6 Rxd6 Qh5 Kg8 -3.76
>N13 640.21s Bh6 Qg3 Bxd5 exd5 Qd6 Qf3 Bf4 Qh5 Qh6 Qf5 Qg5 Qh7+ Kf8 ... -3.70
>
>
>And here is the output after Qg3:
>
>N6 0.33s Bxd5 exd5 Bf4 Qh4 Bh6 Qh5 Qf8 Qxe5 -4.54
>N7 0.50s Bxd5 exd5 -4.54
>N8 1.10s Bxd5 exd5 Bf4 Qh4 Bh6 Qh5 Qf8 d6 Rd7 Qxe5 -4.80
>N9 3.68s Bxd5 exd5 Bf4 Qd3 Kf8 d6 Qxd6 Qxd6+ Rxd6 Rh8+ Ke7 Rxc8 ... -3.94
>N10 26.48s Bxd5 exd5 Bf4 Qd3 Kf8 d6 Qxd6 Qxd6+ Rxd6 Rh8+ Ke7 Rxc8 ... -4.16
>N11 62.56s Bxd5 exd5 Bf4 Qd3 Kf8 d6 Qxd6 Qxd6+ -4.16
>N12 203.89s Bxd5 exd5 Bf4 Qg4 Qd6 Rfg1 g6 Qh4 Kf8 Rg4 b5 Rg2 Qb4 -4.26
>N13 564.64s Bxd5 exd5 Bf4 Qg4 Qd6 Rfg1 g6 Qh4 Kf8 a3 g5 Rxg5 Bxg5 Q... -4.06
>
>
>
>So Qg3 looks better, by a small margin...
>
>
>
> Christophe
The question is if the evaluation is realistic after Qg3.
When I give the moves after Qg3 to my computer(Bxd5 exd5 Bf4 Qg4 Qd6 Rfg1) I do
not see a win for white after Bh6.
Maybe I did not analyze deep enough but I think that the main line is wrong and
Qh3 instead of Qg4 is better.
I guess that tiger can play better than the main line in a practical tournament
time control game.
Uri
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.