Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is this move really the best?

Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes

Date: 06:04:11 05/05/00

Go up one level in this thread


On May 03, 2000 at 21:08:46, Paulo Soares wrote:

>On May 03, 2000 at 07:14:21, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote:
>
>>On May 03, 2000 at 05:48:33, Paulo Soares wrote:
>>>
>>>I analyzed 1. Rxe6 fxe6 2. Bh6 a6 for a long time, but I didn't get to find any
>>>position in that  white are better. However, I think Howard is right
>>>when he wrote: "the position was extremely deep and full of twists and
>>>turns that computers needed a long time to resolve".
>>>I will seek in the files with approximately 1.5 years to see what you and
>>>Howard played, I am curious because I am not 100% sure that white
>>>can't win/draw in this position.
>>>
>>>Paulo Soares
>>
>>
>>I have let Shredder analyse the position after 1.Rxe6 fxe6 a bit. After a while
>>Shredder switches to 2.Bh6, but the score is still significantly lower that at
>>the root without playing 1.Rxe6.
>>
>>Thanks for all your input
>>   Stefan
>>
>>
>> 6.01   0:02.03  +1.74   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kf7 4.Qf3+ Bf6 5.Bg5 Rb8 6.Rd1 Ke7
>>                         (223.571) 110.0
>> 6 ->   0:02.06  +1.74   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kf7 4.Qf3+ Bf6 5.Bg5 Rb8 6.Rd1 Ke7
>>                         (224.949) 109.0
>> 7.01   0:04.28  +1.49-- 2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Qxe7+ (494.282) 115.4
>> 7.01   0:04.79  +0.99-- 2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Qxe7+ (573.511) 119.5
>> 7.01   0:06.07  +0.82   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Ne8+ Rxe8 9.Qxe8 (739.209) 121.6
>> 7 ->   0:06.29  +0.82   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Ne8+ Rxe8 9.Qxe8 (765.290) 121.5
>> 8.01   0:11.54  +0.80   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rcd8 7.Qc6 Qc7 8.Nxd8+ Rxd8 9.Qxc7 Nxc7
>>                         (1.376.981) 119.2
>> 8 ->   0:11.65  +0.80   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rcd8 7.Qc6 Qc7 8.Nxd8+ Rxd8 9.Qxc7 Nxc7
>>                         (1.391.745) 119.3
>> 9.01   0:24.64  +0.55-- 2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Ne8+ Rxe8 9.Bh6+ Kxh6 10.Qh3+ Kg5
>>                         11.Qg3+ Kf6 12.Qe5+ Kxe5 (2.717.680) 110.2
>> 9.01   0:32.15  +0.05-- 2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Ne8+ Rxe8 9.b3 Rxd7 (3.687.498) 114.6
>> 9.01   0:46.23  -0.20   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Ne8+ Rxe8 9.Qxe8 Nf6 10.Qb8 Rxc1+
>>                         (5.350.617) 115.7
>> 9 ->   0:49.75  -0.20   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Ne8+ Rxe8 9.Qxe8 Nf6 10.Qb8 Rxc1+
>>                         (5.747.090) 115.5
>>10.01   1:47.68  -0.45-- 2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Ne8+ Rxe8 9.Bh6+ Kxh6 10.Qh3+ Kg5
>>                         11.Qh6+ Kxh6 (12.019.946) 111.6
>>10.01   2:25.21  -0.95-- 2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Ne8+ Rxe8 9.Bh6+ Kxh6 10.Qh3+ Kg5
>>                         11.Qh6+ Kxh6 (16.533.198) 113.8
>>10.01   3:18.28  -1.36   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nxa5 Rxd7 8.Nc6 Rc7 9.Nxe7 Rxe7 10.Bg5 Re5
>>                         11.Bh6 (22.759.629) 114.7
>>10 ->   3:36.00  -1.36   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nxa5 Rxd7 8.Nc6 Rc7 9.Nxe7 Rxe7 10.Bg5 Re5
>>                         11.Bh6 (24.620.915) 113.9
>>11.01   6:50.21  -1.61-- 2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nxa5 Rxd7 8.Nc6 Rc7 9.Nxe7 Rxe7 10.b3 Kg7 11.Bg5
>>                         (46.176.846) 112.5
>>11.01  10:45.17  -1.88   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Qb5 Qxb5 9.Nxb5 Rd7 10.Be3 Nxe3
>>                         11.fxe3 Rc8 12.Rf1 (71.838.251) 111.3
>>11 ->  13:25.06  -1.88   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nd6+ Kg7 8.Qb5 Qxb5 9.Nxb5 Rd7 10.Be3 Nxe3
>>                         11.fxe3 Rc8 12.Rf1 (88.329.686) 109.7
>>12.01  27:53.01  -1.93   2.Nxe6 Qa5 3.Bxd7+ Kxd7 4.Nec5+ Ke8 5.Qd7+ Kf7 6.Nxb7
>>                         Rc7 7.Nxa5 Rxd7 8.Bh6 Rc8 9.Re1 Kg8 10.Nb3
>>                         (182.248.490) 108.9
>>12.02  36:42.14  -1.92++ 2.Bh6 a6 3.Bxa6 Bxa6 4.Nxe6 Qa5 5.Ng7+ Kf7 6.Qe6+ Kf8
>>                         7.Qxd7 Qc7 8.Nf5+ Kf7 9.Qxd5+ Kf6 10.Bg7+
>>                         (236.080.207) 107.2
>>12.02  44:10.84  -1.57++ 2.Bh6 a6 3.Bxa6 Bxa6 4.Nxe6 Qa5 5.Ng7+ Kf7 6.Qe6+ Kf8
>>                         7.Qxd7 Qc7 8.Qxd5 (278.298.198) 104.9
>>12.02  55:46.12  -1.15   2.Bh6 a6 3.Bxa6 Qc7 4.Nxe6 Qc6 5.Bxb7 Qxb7 6.Ng7+ Kf8
>>                         7.Re1 Qc6 8.Nf5+ Kf7 9.Nd4 Qxa4 10.Qe6+ (342.851.382)
>>                         102.4
>>12 ->  58:46.01  -1.15   2.Bh6 a6 3.Bxa6 Qc7 4.Nxe6 Qc6 5.Bxb7 Qxb7 6.Ng7+ Kf8
>>                         7.Re1 Qc6 8.Nf5+ Kf7 9.Nd4 Qxa4 10.Qe6+ (361.427.969)
>>                         102.5
>>13.01  84:06.04  -1.05   2.Bh6 a6 3.Bxa6 Qc7 4.Nxe6 Qc6 5.Bxb7 Qxb7 6.Ng7+ Kf8
>>                         7.Re1 Qc6 8.Nf5+ Kf7 9.Nd4 Qxa4 10.Qe6+ (512.424.766)
>>                         101.5
>
>
>I didn't get to improve the position of the white after 1. Rxe6 fxe6 2. Bh6 a6.
>The initial position is very complex, it is difficult to aim the best move.
>Ernst A. Heinz shows that 1. Nxe6 can also be analyzed more deeply, and I
>agree. On the other hand Peter thinks 1. Qd3 are the best move.
>I find difficult to arrive to a conclusion without analyzing with more depth
>1. Qd3, 1. Bh6, 1. Rxe6 and 1. Nxe6. Ok, I know that am writing
>the obvious, but this is the conclusion  that I arrived after some
>hours of analysis.
>
>Paulo

In my view our silicon friends have not explored all the meaningful
possibilities offered by this most interesting position.For instance,
how about the line 1.Rxe6 Rxc1+ 2.Rxc1 Nf4 ? JAFM



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.