Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:09:22 11/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2000 at 03:48:35, Harald Faber wrote:
>On November 20, 2000 at 01:11:31, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>>>>I can add that I found from analyzing the game that Gambittiger did not use the
>>>>>original book against Deep Junior.
>>>>
>>>>I forgot to say that I did not check other games and in the case of the game
>>>>against Deep Junior it did not help Gambit and Gambit lost the game.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>You mean that that its own book may indeed be better for its results?
>>>S.Taylor
>>
>>I have no idea but it is clear that it could not be worse against Junior because
>>Gambit lost the game.
>
>As operator of Gambit Tiger I can say that GT used the original opening book.
>The first move out of book was c2-c4.
When I look at the game I see that the first move out of book is b4 and not
c2-c4 and there are no book moves at move 17
Is my commercial version of chess tiger different?
Here is the game
[Event "Thueringen"]
[Site "Mohlsdorf"]
[Date "2000.11.16"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Gambit Tiger 1.0 Athlon 500"]
[Black "Junior 6.0 Athlon 1000"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B90"]
[PlyCount "143"]
[EventDate "2000.11.15"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3
Be7 9. Qd2 Nbd7 10. g4 h6 11. O-O-O b5 12. Kb1 Nb6 13. Na5 Qc7 14. Bxb6 Qxb6
15. Nd5 Bxd5 16. exd5 Rc8 17. b4 Qc7 18. c4 Nd7 19. cxb5 Bg5 20. Qb2 axb5 21.
Bxb5 O-O 22. a4 Nf6 23. h4 Bf4 24. Nc6 Ra8 25. g5 Nh5 26. Qc2 g6 27. Rdg1 {
Junior sah sich nach 27.Ld3!? mit mehr als einem halben Bauern im Nachteil,
bleibt nachzupruefen. Nach dem Partiezug 27.Tdg1 kippt Juniors Bewertung, im
Permanent brain sinkt Tigers Bewrtung auch deutlich von +0.70 auf ca. 0.00.}
27... Qb6 28. gxh6 Kh8 29. Rg4 Qe3 30. Rhg1 Nf6 31. R4g2 Nxd5 32. Kb2 Qxf3 33.
Be2 Qh3 34. h5 gxh5 35. Bd3 Bxh6 36. Rh2 Qe3 37. Rxh5 Qxg1 38. Rxh6+ Kg7 39.
Rh7+ Kf6 40. Qd2 Nf4 41. Bc2 Ke6 42. Rh6+ f6 43. Rh7 Rae8 44. Qc3 Rh8 45. Ra7
Rh1 46. Qc4+ Nd5 47. Qd3 Qa1+ 48. Kb3 48... Rf1 {
Junior hielt hier 49.Ta5!? fuer sehr gut; bleibt zu pruefen.} 49. Qg3 Rf4 50.
Qg6 Rf3+ 51. Kc4 Qf1+ 52. Bd3 Nb6+ 53. Kb5 Qxd3+ 54. Qxd3 Rxd3 55. Kxb6 e4 56.
Rh7 e3 57. Rh3 e2 58. Rxd3 e1=Q 59. Kc7 d5 60. Nd4+ Kf7 61. Nc6 Qe4 62. Rd4 Qe6
63. b5 Rc8+ 64. Kb7 Qd7+ 65. Kb6 Ke6 66. Rd2 Qc7+ 67. Kc5 Qd6+ 68. Kd4 Qf4+ 69.
Kc3 Kd6 70. Rd4 Qe3+ 71. Kb4 Rxc6 72. Rxd5+ {Hat nun wirklich keinen Sinn mehr}
0-1
Uri
GT didn't lose that game because of a bad
>opening line. After winning the pawn and having placed the a- and b-pawn on a4
>and b4 and the knight on a5 and the bishop on b5 the white position is clearly
>better, this is a stable position although it opened the king's position.
>I still wonder where the game went wrong. Probably because GT went over to the
>kingside for a bluff attack that didn't work but cost 2 pawns and the rook vs
>bishop.
This page took 0.01 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.