Author: Pete Galati
Date: 19:40:47 12/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2000 at 21:50:52, Laurence Chen wrote: >On December 20, 2000 at 20:38:44, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On December 20, 2000 at 19:53:33, Pete Galati wrote: >> >>>On December 20, 2000 at 07:32:27, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote: >>> >>>> Most likely you are both right,I respect your analytical powers, >>>> but my question is:"In the position shown,what is the best move?" >>>> 28.Nxf8!! seems to me a real find,but is it so? [maybe 28.Nxd8 is stronger >>>> after all,who knows?]It is up to you guys to decide...Thank you. JAFM >>> >>>When I looked at the position, my personal opinion was Bxf8, not Nxf8, but I >>>wasn't looking too far ahead. Dos Comet said Nxd8, I didn't run it by anything >>>else yet though, got interupted. >>> >>>Pete >> >>Ok, Junior just wasn't going to finish search depth of 21 any time soon >>probably. KtxQ might just be too much to pass up. >> >>New position >>[D]r2q1rk1/1p1b3p/p3N1np/8/2Pp4/B2B2R1/6PP/2R3K1 w - - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by Junior 6.0: >> >>1.Nf4 Rxf4 2.Bxg6 hxg6 >> -+ (-10.02) depth: 3 00:00:00 >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Rf1 Re8 3.Bxg6 >> µ (-0.84) depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Rf1 Re8 3.Bxg6 >> µ (-0.84) depth: 6 00:00:00 3kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Be7 Rdc8 3.Bf6 a5 4.Bxd4 b5 5.Rf3 >> ³ (-0.66) depth: 9 00:00:00 44kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Be7 Rdc8 3.Bf6 h5 4.Bxd4 h4 5.Rf3 b5 6.c5 >> ³ (-0.52) depth: 12 00:00:01 630kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Bc5 Be8 3.Rb1 b5 4.Bb6 Rdc8 5.cxb5 Bxb5 6.Bxd4 Bxd3 7.Rxd3 Nf4 >>8.Rf3 >> ³ (-0.39) depth: 15 00:00:20 11917kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Bc5 Bc6 3.Rf1 h5 4.Bf5 a5 5.Rd3 Re8 6.Bxd4 Re2 7.Rf2 Rae8 >> ³ (-0.44) depth: 17 00:01:17 45072kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Bc5 Bc6 3.Rf1 h5 4.Bb6 Rd7 5.Bf5 Re7 6.Bxd4 h4 7.Rg5 Be4 8.Bg4 >> ³ (-0.32) depth: 18 00:02:56 97350kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Bc5 a5 3.Bb6 Rf8 4.Bxg6 hxg6 5.Rxg6+ Kh7 6.Rd6 Bc6 7.Re1 Rfe8 >>8.Rxe8 Rxe8 9.Bxd4 Re2 10.g3 >> ³ (-0.31) depth: 19 00:06:45 220387kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Bc5 a5 3.Bb6 Rf8 4.Bxg6 hxg6 5.Rxg6+ Kh7 6.Rd6 Bc6 7.Re1 Rfe8 >>8.Rf1 Re2 9.Rf2 Rxf2 10.Kxf2 >> ³ (-0.35) depth: 20 00:14:51 483133kN >>1.Nxd8 Rfxd8 2.Bc5 Bc6 3.Rf1 h5 4.Rf4 Be8 5.Kf2 Bf7 6.Bb6 Rdc8 7.Rxd4 Rf8 >> ³ (-0.30) depth: 21 00:32:27 1044000kN >> >>(Galati, ` 20.12.2000) >1. Nxf8 is a mistake. It may have worked in this game because it was played by >humans. Remember Tal's sacrifices, they were not all sound, it was more of a >psychological weapon because it is very difficult to work all the possibilities >in OTB. If this was a correspondence game I doubt that White would have won >this game. >Regards, >Laurence Tal's the man! I forget how he put it exactly, but something to the effect of " There are correct sacrifices, and then there are my sacrifices". I never could make his insane style of sacrifices work because I can't really see what was behind them. He seemed to complicate things an awful lot, I think that was so he always had something to fall back on. Pete
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.