Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:42:50 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 06:11:11, Amir Ban wrote: >On October 17, 2000 at 15:13:47, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On October 16, 2000 at 11:55:36, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2000 at 11:12:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2000 at 10:03:52, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 15, 2000 at 04:04:05, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 14, 2000 at 16:15:17, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>[Event "Open Dutch CC 2000"] >>>>>>>[Site "Leiden NED"] >>>>>>>[Date "2000.10.14"] >>>>>>>[Round "02"] >>>>>>>[White "Tiger"] >>>>>>>[Black "Nimzo 8"] >>>>>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>>>>[ECO "D20"] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Bxc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Bf5 >>>>>>>8.Nbc3 e6 9.a3 Qd7 10.O-O Be7 11.Be3 O-O-O 12.Rc1 f6 13.exf6 gxf6 >>>>>>>14.Na4 Nd5 15.Bc4 Na5 16.Ba2 Bg4 17.Nac3 Nxc3 18.Rxc3 Kb8 19.f3 Bh5 >>>>>>>20.b4 Nc6 21.b5 Na5 22.Qa4 b6 23.Nf4 Bf7 24.Rfc1 Bd6 25.Nd3 Rhg8 >>>>>>>26.Nc5 Bxc5 27.dxc5 e5 28.Bxf7 Qxf7 29.cxb6 cxb6 30.Qc2 Qg6 31.Qa2 f5 >>>>>>>32.Kh1 f4 33.Bg1 h5 34.Qe2 Qf6 35.a4 h4 36.h3 Qg5 37.R1c2 Rd7 >>>>>>>38.Qe1 Rdg7 39.Qe4 Rd7 40.Qe2 Rgd8 41.Qe1 Qe7 42.Qe4 Qg5 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>>Assuming that the sacrifice is accepted, 45. a5 seems easy to find, but I wonder >>>>>>what would have happened had black tried to keep lines closed with 45. ... b5, >>>>>>which is also possible for a program to find. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If 45... b5 46. Qe2 Rd5 47. Bb6! is not clearly winning, but makes black suffer. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not impressed with Thorsten's line: 45... b5 46. Qb4 Rd5 47. a6 Qf6 48. Qc3 >>>>>Qd6 I think black is safe and clearly better. White is completely passive >>>>>guarding c6, his back rank, and needs to stop the passed b-pawn somehow after a >>>>>black Kc8. >>>>> >>>>>It seems to me that the sacrifice is interesting, but doesn't lead to any white >>>>>advantage. The position looks dead even until black's terrible 52... a6. What's >>>>>wrong with 52... Qg6 ? Other options exist, e.g. to play 48... Rd1 (instead of >>>>>48... Qf6), which more or less kills any notion that white will win this game. >>>>> >>>>>Amir >>>> >>>> >>>>This is not fair. >>>> >>>>You can't blame the loss on a bad/weak move by black. Not after white >>>>sacrificed material. The loss was caused by the Rc6 sacrifice. >>>> >>>>Or at least that is what we are supposed to believe. >>>> >>>>:) >>>> >>>>(good analysis by the way. I see some short-term suffering by black, but he >>>>is material ahead. And once the suffering is over, counting pawns is a good way >>>>to see who is winning.) >>> >>>Amir did not say that black is winning but that the position looks dead even. >>> >>>Counting pawns will tell you that black is winning so it is not right to count >>>pawns. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >> >> >>If the position is dead even, then by all means white must play Rc6. >> > >I meant it's dead even after Rc6. > > >>Because it creates opportunities. >> > >It creates opportunities for both sides. You are really underestimating what >black can do in this position because it didn't. I guess that the result is a draw(assuming no mistakes) before and after Rc6 but the question is if Rc6 is practically a good move. I understand that you guess that from a practical point of view the expected result is close to 50% after Rc6 so the move Rc6 did not improve white's chances. It is possible to check it by testing gambittiger against other programs to see if gambittiger can lose the game after Rc6. 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.