Author: fca
Date: 23:54:18 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 18:27:26, blass uri wrote: > >On July 14, 1998 at 17:36:42, fca wrote: > >>The reference is: http://www.rebel.nl/rebel10a.htm#ANTI-GM >> >>First may I say I am excited about anti-GM, and very positive about the four >>follow-up examples given of its operation. It looks like a real advance! I >>will certainly buy R10, but that is not so strange as I bought R8 and R9 (and >>many other programs) too... >> >>But the original / basal example troubles me a lot: I have told Ed of this, but >>as the example stays on the site I must consider that I may have missed >>something. >> >>In the example, the move is 1. Rxe6 (selected quickly by anti-GM). If 1. Rxe6 >>is _not_ played, IMO the position is -= . Black has a pawn, but White has some >>compensation. Probable outcome: draw. >> >>Now it is not difficult IMO to show that now 1... fxe6 wins for Black. There >>are some mates to avoid, but otherwise _natural_ play by Black seems to result >>in a comfortable win. Not hard to find the winning play (I did). But it is >>likely that a GM sees more dangers than I. >> >>Now what I have already written does not in itself mean that anti-GM has >>selected a bad move, for if a GM etc. would not select 1... fxe6 (say time was >>quite limited, and GM got scared) then anti-GM would have worked! >> >>I believe Amir's opinion (please excuse if I've been misadvised) was that "they" >>may not select 1... fxe6 in such circumstances (short time). >> >>I disagree. I think there are no sensible alternatives to 1... fxe6, so the >>sacrifice must be accepted. Here is some manual analysis (interesting to see if >>programs agree) to support my view. The reason I did the analysis by hand is >>simply that I do not have a cc here: but I suppose it is relevant because we are >>looking at what a human Black would play. (A computer black obvioulsy grabs the >>Rook, and wins). > >It is not truth >The programs I have do not grab the rook if I give them 3 minutes. >Rxe6 is a good anti computer move. > >Uri After 1. Rxe6, please Uri what is the suggested move by your programs? >> >>1. Rx6 0-0 2. Bh6 exf6 3. Nxe6 forking Q & R leaves White at least += - but >>there may well be something _even_ better for White (as per Alekhine, the >>makings of a combination are here) >> >>1. Rxe6 0-0 2. Bh6 Re8? (if the Rook-capture fear still persists) 3. Bxd7 fxe6 >>(3... Qxd7 4. Rxg6+ 1-0 ) 4. Qxe6+ Bf8 (4... Rg8 5. Nxe6 +- ) and after the >>(big) simplification White stays a pawn up, maybe with a better position +- >> >>1. Rxe6 Rxc1+?! 2. Rxc1 exf6 (best, why now if not earlier? 2...Nxf4? 3. Rxe7+ >>+- ) Nxe6 Qb8 Nxc7+ +- as the knight is poisoned, and a King escape to f-land >>will leave White well ahead in material >> >>So... what is left? >> >>1. Rxe6 Rc7 but surely not? How boring! At best, Black has lost all >>of his advantage (I think White is *tactically* winning here, but the problem is >>too hard for me!). Would a GM actually choose ..Rc7 ? White's threat is still >>in place... he has not removed anything. Pins... soon. more pins, Rook doubling >>on e-, etc. Would a human GM care to have Black here? Kind regards fca
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.