Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:01:01 09/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2000 at 15:44:34, Michel Langeveld wrote: >Origanal CAP row: >8/8/2R5/1p2qp1k/1P2r3/2PQ2P1/5K2/8 w - - acd 13; acn 149063037; ce 1458; pv Qd1+ >Kg5 Qd2+ Rf4+ Kg1 Kh5 Qh2+ Kg5 gxf4+ Qxf4 Rg6+ Kxg6 Qxf4 Kf7 c4 bxc4 b5 Kf6 b6 >c3 b7 c2 b8=Q Ke6; pm Qd1+; bm Qd1+; id "WAC.058"; > >New CAP row (seems to be mate in: 32) > > b8=Q Kf7 11. Qc7+ <HT> > 14 5:38 ++ 1. Qd1+!! > 14 13:52 Mat32 1. Qd1+ Kg5 2. Qd2+ Rf4+ 3. Qxf4+ Qxf4+ > 4. gxf4+ Kxf4 5. Rc5 Ke4 6. Rxf5 Kxf5 > <HT> > 14-> 17:15 Mat32 1. Qd1+ Kg5 2. Qd2+ Rf4+ 3. Qxf4+ Qxf4+ > 4. gxf4+ Kxf4 5. Rc5 Ke4 6. Rxf5 Kxf5 > <HT> It seems to be mate in less than 32 but tablebases confuse the computer and it goes for sacrifices that are not the shortest mate. White does not need KPP vs KP endgame to mate and 6.Rxf5 in the line of mate in 32 is clearly not the best move(6.Rxb5 is better). Uri
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.