Author: Roman Hartmann
Date: 02:50:29 10/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2005 at 05:33:09, Günther Simon wrote: >On October 13, 2005 at 05:24:18, Roman Hartmann wrote: > [ ... ] >>New game, >>8/4r3/2R4p/k6P/5pK1/4b3/6B1/8 b - - 0 1 >>Analysis by Toga II 1.0: >>1. = (-0.19): 1...Re5 2.Rg6 Re8 3.Kf5 Rf8+ 4.Rf6 Rh8 5.Bf3 Kb4 6.Kg6 Kc4 7.Rd6 >>Bd4 8.Kf5 Rf8+ 9.Kg6 Bc5 10.Re6 Rd8 11.Kxh6 >>2. = (-0.15): 1...Rg7+ 2.Rg6 Rh7 3.Bf3 Kb4 4.Kf5 Rh8 5.Rg7 Kc5 6.Kg6 Bd4 7.Rc7+ >>Kd6 8.Rh7 Rc8 9.Kf5 Rc5+ 10.Kg4 Bf6 11.Rxh6 Ke5 >>3. = (-0.15): 1...Re8 2.Bf3 Rh8 3.Kf5 Kb5 4.Rc7 Kb6 5.Rb7+ Kc5 6.Kg6 Bd4 7.Rc7+ >>Kd6 8.Rh7 Rc8 9.Kf5 Rc5+ 10.Kg4 Bf6 11.Rxh6 Ke5 >>4. = (-0.15): 1...Rh7 2.Kf5 Rh8 3.Bf3 Kb5 4.Rc7 Kb6 5.Rb7+ Kc5 6.Kg6 Bd4 7.Rc7+ >>Kd6 8.Rh7 Rc8 9.Kf5 Rc5+ 10.Kg4 Bf6 11.Rxh6 Ke5 >>5. = (-0.14): 1...Kb4 2.Bf3 Rh7 3.Rc8 Rf7 4.Rc6 Rg7+ 5.Kf5 Rh7 6.Rc8 Ra7 7.Ra8 >>Rxa8 8.Bxa8 Kc5 9.Kg6 Kd6 10.Bf3 Bd4 11.Kxh6 >>6. = (-0.09): 1...Rf7 2.Be4 Rf8 3.Rxh6 f3 4.Re6 f2 5.Bg2 Bd4 6.Re4 Bc5 7.h6 f1Q >>8.Bxf1 Rxf1 9.h7 Rf8 10.Rf4 Rd8 11.Kf5 Kb5 12.Rh4 >>7. = (-0.05): 1...Rb7 2.Be4 Rb8 3.Rxh6 f3 4.Re6 f2 5.Bg2 Bd4 6.h6 Rb1 7.h7 Rg1 >>8.Kf3 f1Q+ 9.Bxf1 Rxf1+ 10.Ke4 Bb2 11.Rg6 Re1+ 12.Kf5 Re5+ 13.Kf4 Re7 >>8. = (-0.05): 1...Rd7 2.Be4 Rd8 3.Rxh6 f3 4.Rf6 f2 5.Kg3 Rh8 6.Bg6 Kb4 7.Rxf2 >>Bxf2+ 8.Kxf2 Kc5 9.Ke3 Kd5 10.Kf4 Kd4 11.Bf7 Rb8 >>9. = (-0.03): 1...Bd2 2.Rd6 Bc1 3.Bf3 Rh7 4.Kf5 Rh8 5.Rd1 Be3 6.Kg6 Rg8+ 7.Kxh6 >>Kb5 8.Kh7 Rg3 9.Rf1 Kc4 10.h6 Rg5 >>10. = (-0.01): 1...Kb5 2.Rxh6 f3 3.Bf1+ Kc5 4.Rg6 f2 5.Kf3 Bd4 6.h6 Rh7 7.Ke4 >>Bc3 8.Rg5+ Kb4 9.Rb5+ Ka4 10.Rf5 Rxh6 11.Rxf2 Rh4+ 12.Kd5 Kb4 > >Hi Roman, > >The game was already in move 133, thus it is quite possible that the end >of the 50 moves draw period was near. >You'll need to feed the whole game history therefore instead of just the >position to probably get the same move(of course it is also possible you >won't ever get the same move because of different hash entries). >Anyway it's needless to talk about ...f3(=) because it draws like most other >moves too, what every better player can see(read my other post). >Regrettably the original poster omitted the pgn, thus we cannot see where >the _real_ blunder was, if it hadn't lost on time at all. > >Guenther Hi Guenther, you're right, of course. But I wondered that f3 wasn't even considered by Fruit-Toga by analyzing the position. The hash entries might be an explanation for the move or as already mentioned the time control. Roman PS: posting games is definitely not the same as posting positions. Recently I got a game where Roce's incremental eval gets broken. I cannot reproduce the bug by only analyzing the critical position but have to 'walk't trough the the game to reproduce that behviour.
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.