Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:41:33 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2001 at 08:25:43, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Deep fritz at depth 15: 1.Be4! +- (1.56) Depth: 15/41 00:20:09 794648kN 1.Bg5! +- (1.59) Depth: 15/41 00:23:34 925730kN (blass, tel-aviv 04.04.2001) It seems that there is more than one winning move in the relevant position I decided to stop it at depth 15 and it did not solve the fail high for Bg5 [D]rr1q3k/pbp2p1p/1pnbpNpB/8/3P4/2PB1Q2/P1P2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1 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.