Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:25:43 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 05:44:44, Tony Werten wrote: >On April 03, 2001 at 07:38:13, Ferdinand S. Mosca wrote: > >>On April 03, 2001 at 07:33:32, Ferdinand S. Mosca wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>My first experience to watch the new Gambit Tiger 2.0 at play against >>>Yace in a 1 hr and 30 min game. >>> >>>Game 1: >>>Yace is better in the opening and manage to maintain a slight >>>positional advantage. Gambit Tiger 2.0 here is defeated in the ending >>>because of a weak pawn structure. I thought it is interested more on mobility >>>because even on ending where pawn structure is more important, >>>it still evaluates some positions as equal (pos 1). The patented king safety >>>of Gambit Tiger 2.0 is working here but you probably not noticed. >>>Try looking at the f7 square of how it is defended till end game?. >>>And also try examining how it watches the f2 and f7 (pos 2) >>>squares on many of its games, I thought this is one of the >>>points when considering a king safety for a castled position. >>> >>>Pos 1: Yace - Gambit Tiger 2.0 (g1) (1-0) >>>[D]8/5p2/4bp1k/p6P/p3PKPN/P7/2r5/R7 w - - 0 1 >>>Yace played the strong 43. Rf1! > >XiniX says: > >ply:13/22 score:1,514 time:108 96Kn/s 1.Rf1 Kg7 2.Nf5+ Bxf5 3.Kxf5 Rc3 4.h6+ >Kxh6 5.Kxf6 Rc6+ 6.Kxf7 Kg5 7.Rf5+ Kxg4 8.Rxa5 > >>> >>> >>>Game 2: >>>Gambit Tiger 2.0 is better in the opening with many of its pieces >>>focusing on the castled king position of Yace. This is one of the >>>weakness of a French Defence, the kingside is very vulnerable to >>>attack, more when you played opposite the Gambit Tiger 2.0. >>>An illustrative game on conducting a kingside >>>assault is shown by Gambit Tiger 2.0. >>> >>>Pos 2: Gambit Tiger 2.0 - Yace (g2) (1-0) >>>[D]rr1q3k/pbp2p1p/1pnbpNpB/8/3P4/2PB1Q2/P1P2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1 >>>Gambit Tiger 2.0 played the unexpected 20. Re4!! > >Maybe someone should check this one: > >ply:10/17 score:0,760 time:223 51Kn/s 1.Nxh7 Bxh2+ 2.Kxh2 Qh4+ 3.Kg1 Qxh6 4.Qxf7 >Qxh7 5.Bxg6 Qxf7 6.Bxf7 >ply:11/19 score:0,960 Nxh7 fail high >ply:11/20 score:1,319 time:531 50Kn/s 1.Nxh7 Qh4 2.Qf6+ Qxf6 3.Nxf6 Be7 4.Ne4 >Rd8 5.Bf4 Rc8 6.Ng5 > > >Tony Deep Fritz says that xinix simply did not search deep enough. Deep Fritz believes that Nxh7 is the bext move at depth 10 and 11 but not at depth 12. Bg5 is the best move for depth 12 and Be4 is the best move for depth 13 Interesting to mention that Deep Fritz start searching from bad captures. Qxc6, Rxe6, Bxg6 are the first moves that it searches. New position rr1q3k/pbp2p1p/1pnbpNpB/8/3P4/2PB1Q2/P1P2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1 Analysis by Deep Fritz: 1.Qxc6-- -+ (-3.09) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 1.Qxc6-- Bxc6 -+ (-5.59) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 1.Rxe6! -+ (-3.91) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 1.Rxe6! fxe6 -+ (-3.44) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 1.Bxg6! -+ (-2.47) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 1.Bxg6! hxg6 -+ (-2.22) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 1.Nxh7! -+ (-2.06) Depth: 1/3 00:00:00 1.Nxh7! Kxh7 ² (0.53) Depth: 1/6 00:00:00 1.Be4 b5 2.Bg5 Be7 ² (0.69) Depth: 4/18 00:00:00 3kN 1.Be4 b5 2.Bg5 Be7 ² (0.69) Depth: 4/18 00:00:00 3kN 1.Be4 b5 2.Bg5 Be7 ² (0.69) Depth: 4/18 00:00:00 3kN 1.Be4 b5 2.Bg5 Be7 ² (0.69) Depth: 4/18 00:00:00 3kN 1.Be4 b5 2.Bg5 Be7 ² (0.69) Depth: 4/18 00:00:00 3kN 1.Be4 b5 2.Bg5 Be7 ² (0.69) Depth: 4/18 00:00:00 3kN 1.Be4 b5 2.Bg5 Be7 ² (0.69) Depth: 4/18 00:00:00 3kN 1.Be4 b5 2.Bg5 Be7 ² (0.69) Depth: 4/18 00:00:00 3kN 1.Be4 Na5 2.Bxb7 Nxb7 3.Bg5 Qf8 ² (0.50) Depth: 5/17 00:00:00 16kN 1.Bg5! ² (0.53) Depth: 5/17 00:00:00 21kN 1.Bg5! Ne7 2.Qh3 h5 3.Rad1 ± (0.78) Depth: 5/17 00:00:00 27kN 1.Bg5 Ne7 2.Qh3 h5 3.Rad1 c6 ± (0.72) Depth: 6/19 00:00:00 46kN 1.Be4! ± (0.75) Depth: 6/19 00:00:00 64kN 1.Be4-- ² (0.44) Depth: 7/20 00:00:00 150kN 1.Be4-- ² (0.44) Depth: 7/20 00:00:00 156kN 1.Bg5! ² (0.47) Depth: 7/20 00:00:00 181kN 1.Bg5! Be7 2.Qf4 Kg7 3.Bh6+ Kh8 4.Nxh7 Kxh7 5.Qxf7+ Kh8 ² (0.66) Depth: 7/20 00:00:00 235kN 1.Bg5 Be7 2.Be4 Na5 3.Qf4 Bxe4 4.Qh4 h5 5.Rxe4 ± (0.81) Depth: 8/23 00:00:01 522kN 1.Bg5 Be7 2.Be4 Na5 3.Qf4 Bxe4 4.Qh4 h5 5.Rxe4 ± (0.81) Depth: 9/21 00:00:02 1335kN 1.Bg5 Be7 2.Qf4 h5 3.Ne4 Kg7 4.Bxe7 Qxe7 5.Rad1 a6 6.Qe3 ± (0.84) Depth: 10/26 00:00:06 3698kN 1.Nxh7! ± (0.88) Depth: 10/28 00:00:09 5943kN 1.Nxh7 Qh4 2.Qf6+ Qxf6 3.Nxf6 a6 4.Bg5 Kg7 5.Rad1 Rh8 6.f4 Bxf4 ± (0.84) Depth: 11/32 00:00:20 12706kN 1.Nxh7 Qh4 2.Qf6+ Qxf6 3.Nxf6 a6 4.Rab1 b5 5.Be4 Be7 6.Nd7 Rd8 ± (0.94) Depth: 12/36 00:00:51 32875kN 1.Bg5! ± (0.97) Depth: 12/36 00:00:59 38299kN 1.Bg5! h5 2.Ne4 Qf8 3.Nxd6 cxd6 4.Bf6+ Kg8 5.Qg3 Ne7 6.Qxd6 Nd5 ± (1.22) Depth: 12/36 00:01:30 58359kN 1.Bg5 h5 2.Ne4 Qf8 3.Nxd6 cxd6 4.Bf6+ Kg8 5.Qg3 Ne7 6.Qxd6 Nd5 ± (1.22) Depth: 13/34 00:02:50 111926kN 1.Be4! ± (1.25) Depth: 13/34 00:03:53 153102kN 1.Be4! Na5 2.d5 Qe7 3.Bg5 h5 4.dxe6 fxe6 5.Qd3 Bxe4 ± (1.28) Depth: 13/37 00:04:29 176849kN 1.Be4 Na5 2.d5 a6 3.dxe6 Qe7 4.Bxb7 Nxb7 5.Nd7 Qh4 6.Nxb8 Rxb8 ± (1.25) Depth: 14/39 00:07:36 298458kN (blass, tel-aviv 04.04.2001) 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.