Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 23:35:09 01/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2001 at 17:27:15, Joshua Lee wrote: >>>>>>21.Nf3 Bc6 22.Nh4 g5 23.Ng6+ Kh7 24.Nxf8+ Rxf8 25.Bxe6 Bd7 >>>>>> ± (1.06) Depth: 19/47 19:04:48 42992526kN >>>>>>21.e5 >>>>>> ± (1.09) Depth: 19/47 21:54:31 49601048kN >>>>>>21.e5 dxe5 22.Ne4 Nh5 23.Qg4 Nf4 24.Nf3 Qc7 25.Nh4 Bc6 >>>>>> ± (1.31) Depth: 19/50 26:22:52 60316211kN >>>>>> >>>>>>(Lee, Pensacola,Fl 04.01.2001) >>>>>>System 800Mhz Athlon 256Mb pc-133 128MBHT >>>>>> >>>>I think that the line is not correct and I guess that 23.Qg6 is the right move. >>>>It is interesting to know how much time do programs need to find 23.Qg6 and how >>>>much time do they need to see a winning score for this move(I assume that 22.Ne4 >>>>Uri >>> >>> Hello, >><snipped> >>>Spassky played 23.Qg6, but Pierre thought that 23.Qg4!! (Nolot's comment) >>>was better! >> >Qg6 is better and i had already mention analizing in reverse ...at 23Qg6 is >prefered over Qg4 at 16Ply so if i wanted to leave my computer running for 52 >more hours it would've surely found Qg6 in the pv. I think someone should do a really good analysis of this. I think Qg4 is better, but I don't really have the analysis to back that opinion. I'm letting my computer run for a while longer on the root position of Nolot 5 to see if it can find the answer, but after that completes maybe I'll try to analyze Qg4/Qg6 a bit. Jeremiah
This page took 0.02 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.