Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:34:29 06/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 1999 at 19:09:24, blass uri wrote: > >On June 18, 1999 at 17:43:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 18, 1999 at 10:13:05, Robert Ericsson wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 1999 at 10:02:27, James Robertson wrote: >>> >>>>Very exciting game. As far as I know, the first totally successful sacrificial >>>>kingside attack in this tournament. >>>> >>>>James >>> >>>Yeah, great game indeed :-) >>> >>>[Event "WCCC99"] >>>[Site "Paderborn"] >>>[Date "1999.06.18"] >>>[Round "6"] >>>[White "Junior"] >>>[Black "Nimzo"] >>>[Result "1-0"] >>> >>>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3 Bb7 5. Nc3 d5 6. Bg5 >>>dxc4 7. e4 Be7 8. Bxf6 Bxf6 9. Bxc4 O-O 10. e5 Be7 11. O-O >>>c5 12. d5 exd5 13. Nxd5 Nc6 14. Qd3 b5 15. Ba2 c4 16. Qe4 >>>Bc5 17. Nf6+ gxf6 18. Bb1 Re8 19. Qxh7+ Kf8 20. Qh6+ Ke7 >>>21. Qxf6+ Kf8 22. Qh6+ Ke7 23. Be4 Qb6 24. e6 Rad8 25. exf7 >>>Rh8 26. Qg7 Rhf8 27. Bf5 Rxf7 28. Rfe1+ 1-0 >>> >>>Robert >> >> >>Nf6 isn't a sac. all the programs observing the game found that move. Crafty >>saw it in 10 seconds on my PII/300 notebook... the score was +.7 for the >>move... > >1)The fact that programs find a sacrifice does not change the fact that it is a >sacrifice. > >I believe that crafty saw it because of positional reasons(I do not believe that >crafty see more than 3 pawns for the piece and if you use material evaluation >then black has the advantage because the bad trade principle of crafty say that >piece is more than 3 pawns). > >It is easy for program to see by tactical reasons that white can at least force >a draw with perpetual check but not more than it > >2)Not all the programs believe that 17.Nf6+ is the best move. >Hiarcs7.32 prefers 17.Bb1 g6 18.Nf6+ > >Uri But that's the point. A knight for 3 pawns is _not_ a sacrifice. That is roughly equal material exchange. Crafty overrides the "BAD_TRADE" code because it gets the queen and a pawn at f7 plus other pieces close to the black king which is enough to offset the bad trade penalty and then some... which means I don't call it a "sac" as I generally think of a sac as _losing_ material, as in a knight for 1-2 pawns... Bob
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.