Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 11:58:34 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2001 at 08:43:26, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >Are Internet Chessplayer so bad? There you raise a very interesting question, which had me silent for a moment or two :) (not much longer, hey, don't worry...) I looked at the situation when I was at the office and assessed the situation -amongst the arguments I already mentioned- also with the rule (I always learned you have *pawns* and *pieces*):"If you ave an extra pawn, trade pieces, if you have a pawn less, trade pawns and keep pieces" as it's possible to capture the extra pawn easier with the remaining minor or major pieces you have,against less defense pssibilities by your opponent for his or her extra piece. And if you have an extra pawn, it should be the pawns should support each other until they're passed. Before that, they form a better defense against pieces, the possible attackers, so trade those off the board. But it struck me that the game was followed by a lot of people from the computer chess community, and they might be using their chess engines for analysis. So now at home I fed the position into a few and found out: New game - Fritz 6 [D]8/8/1p1k1b1p/p1pP1p2/2P1pP2/4P2P/P1K5/3N4 b - - 0 1 Analysis by Fritz 6: 59...b5! ³ (-0.44) Depth: 1/4 00:00:00 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 ³ (-0.47) Depth: 2/6 00:00:00 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 ³ (-0.47) Depth: 3/7 00:00:00 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.b6 ³ (-0.28) Depth: 4/8 00:00:00 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 Kd6 = (-0.22) Depth: 5/12 00:00:00 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 = (-0.13) Depth: 6/11 00:00:00 1kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 63.Kd2 = (-0.13) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 3kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.a4 c4 = (-0.06) Depth: 8/16 00:00:00 7kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 = (-0.19) Depth: 9/15 00:00:00 14kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 63.Kd2 h5 64.Kc2 = (-0.19) Depth: 10/18 00:00:00 25kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nc3+ Kd6 63.Kd2 h5 64.Kc2 = (-0.19) Depth: 11/18 00:00:00 47kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Ne2 Bh4 63.a4 Bf6 64.Ng3 = (0.00) Depth: 12/18 00:00:00 96kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 c4 62.Nb2 Kc5 63.b6 Kxb6 64.Nxc4+ = (0.00) Depth: 13/20 00:00:00 209kN 59...b5-- ² (0.31) Depth: 14/22 00:00:01 508kN 59...b5-- ² (0.31) Depth: 14/22 00:00:01 529kN 59...Bg7! ² (0.28) Depth: 14/23 00:00:01 734kN 59...Bg7 60.Kb3 b5 61.cxb5 Kxd5 62.Nc3+ Bxc3 63.Kxc3 a4 64.a3 ² (0.31) Depth: 15/26 00:00:03 1382kN 59...b5! ² (0.28) Depth: 15/26 00:00:03 1422kN 59...b5! 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.a4 Bh4 62.Nc3+ Ke6 63.Nd1 Kd6 64.Kb3 = (0.00) Depth: 15/26 00:00:03 1694kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bxc3 63.Kxc3 Kd5 = (0.25) Depth: 16/26 00:00:04 2270kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bxc3 63.Kxc3 Kd5 64.h4 ² (0.37) Depth: 17/27 00:00:06 3379kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bxc3 63.Kxc3 Kd5 ² (0.37) Depth: 18/29 00:00:12 6426kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Be7 63.Kc4 Bh4 64.Nd5 = (0.25) Depth: 19/33 00:00:18 9600kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bh4 63.Na4 Bf2 64.Nb6 = (0.22) Depth: 20/37 00:00:39 15559kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bh4 63.Na4 Bf2 64.Nb6 = (0.19) Depth: 21/37 00:01:04 26712kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bh4 63.Na4 Bf2 64.Nb6 = (0.22) Depth: 22/39 00:01:37 42596kN 59...b5 60.cxb5 Kxd5 61.Nc3+ Kd6 62.Kb3 Bh4 63.Na4 Bf2 64.Nb6 = (0.22) Depth: 23/40 00:02:45 79327kN 59...b5-- ² (0.53) Depth: 24/41 00:04:52 142206kN 59...b5-- ² (0.53) Depth: 24/45 00:05:32 164653kN 59...h5! ² (0.50) Depth: 24/45 00:06:25 191023kN 59...h5! 60.Kb3 Bd8 61.Ka4 Kd7 62.a3 Kc7 63.Kb5 Bh4 64.Ka6 = (0.22) Depth: 24/46 00:08:17 252481kN So Fritz doesn't observe real problems for 59...b5? for quite some analysis time. I also put the position into Shredder 5 which so often finds other solutions and it gave: Engine: Shredder 5 by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen position: 0 1 11.01 0:01 -0.46 1...h5 2.Kb3 h4 3.Ka4 Bd8 4.Kb5 Bc7 5.a4 Bd8 6.Nc3 Bf6 (147.472) 137.6 12.01 0:02 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 Kd8 5.Nb5 Kd7 6.Ke2 Bb2 7.Na7 Bf6 (391.075) 174.5 13.01 0:02 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 Kd8 5.Nb5 Kd7 6.Ke2 Bg7 7.Kf2 Bb2 (565.422) 197.2 14.01 0:03 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 Kd8 5.Nb5 Kd7 6.Ke2 Bg7 7.Na7 Bb2 8.Nc6 (726.018) 212.9 14.02 0:03 -0.36++ 1...b5 2.cxb5 Kxd5 3.Nc3+ Bxc3 4.b6 Kc6 5.b7 Kxb7 6.Kxc3 h5 7.a4 c4 8.Kxc4 Kb6 9.Kd5 (801.050) 216.7 14.02 0:03 -0.33 1...b5 2.cxb5 Kxd5 3.Nc3+ Bxc3 4.Kxc3 a4 5.a3 h5 6.h4 c4 7.b6 Kc6 8.Kxc4 Kxb6 9.Kd5 (848.833) 221.3 15.01 0:05 -0.38 1...b5 2.cxb5 Kxd5 3.Nc3+ Bxc3 4.Kxc3 a4 5.Kb2 c4 6.Kc3 Kc5 7.b6 Kxb6 8.Kxc4 Ka5 9.h4 h5 (1.326.560) 241.4 15.02 0:05 -0.37++ 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 (1.425.677) 246.0 15.02 0:05 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 h4 3.Kd2 Kc7 4.a4 Bd8 (1.452.697) 247.0 16.01 0:07 -0.37 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kd7 3.a4 h4 4.Kb3 Bd8 5.Nb5 Bf6 6.Na7 (2.018.007) 260.7 17.01 0:19 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a4 Bf2 6.Nc3 Bh4 7.Ne2 Bf2 (5.577.991) 279.2 18.01 0:29 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a4 Bf2 6.Nc3 Bh4 7.Ne2 Bf2 (8.406.412) 282.8 19.01 0:48 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a4 Bf2 6.Nc3 Bh4 7.Ne2 Bf2 (13.042.754) 270.8 20.01 1:10 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a4 Bf2 6.Nc3 Bh4 7.d6 (19.944.817) 281.6 21.01 1:55 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a3 Kd6 6.a4 Kd7 7.Kd1 Kd6 8.Kc2 (32.697.325) 282.8 22.01 2:42 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.a3 Kd6 6.a4 Ke7 7.d6+ Kxd6 8.Nc3 (45.191.657) 278.9 23.01 4:10 -0.38 1...h5 2.Nc3 Kc7 3.Ne2 Bh4 4.Kd2 Kd7 5.Nc3 Bd8 6.Ne2 Bh4 7.Nc3 (67.781.569) 270.4 best move: h6-h5 time: 5:09.167 min n/s: 261.756 nodes: 80.924.551 TB: 8 It does indeed discard b5, but calculates the "wrong" line quite regularly, yet doesn't assess it as bad as it turned out. Basically I don't think the web chess players are that bad, but maybe they did rely too much on their chess engines, and too little on their own chess judgement. I'm curious if others (strong players, not a pazer like me) disagree with the assessment of 59...b5 as being the baddy. J.
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.