Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:33:56 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2001 at 08:06:59, william penn wrote:
>On May 29, 2001 at 03:47:13, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On May 29, 2001 at 01:16:23, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On May 29, 2001 at 00:58:44, Jouni Uski wrote:
>>>
>>>>[D]r1b1Rbk1/pp3p2/2np3p/2qp2p1/3N4/1QPB3P/PP3PPB/6K1 w - -
>>>>
>>>>(Sorry if this is discussed already.)
>>>>In this position Ferret played Ne6!!, which I found really stunning. I tested
>>>>position with many engines and long time - no one including Gambit Tiger plays
>>>>it...
>>>>Was it book? Is may be Nb5 even stronger.
>>>>
>>>>BTW Congratulations for Bruce to win with outdated hardware CCT3!
>>>>
>>>>Jouni
>>>
>>>Analysis by Yace:
>>>
>>>white ( 1): test bruce.ci
>>>title position 1
>>>Stored 0 learned positions into hash table
>>>solution Ne6 Nb5
>>>usetime = 9998.00, mintime = 9998.00 maxtime = 9998.00 tl 9998.00 ml 0
>>> 27 0.001 -0.95 1t 1.Rxc8 Rxc8 2.Qxb7 Nxd4 3.cxd4 {-150}
>>> 53 0.002 0.13 1t 1.Nxc6 bxc6 {-80}
>>> 143 0.002 0.22 1t 1.Qd1 Nxd4 2.cxd4 Qxd4 3.Bxd6 {-80}
>>> 252 0.003 0.37 1t 1.Bf5 Nxd4 2.cxd4 {-80}
>>> 430 0.004 0.51 1t 1.Ne2 {-80}
>>> 441 0.005 0.51 1. 1.Ne2 {-80}
>>> 661 0.005 0.45 2t 1.Ne2 b6 {-80}
>>> 1457 0.008 0.45 2. 1.Ne2 b6 {-80}
>>> 2785 0.013 0.40 3t 1.Ne2 d4 2.Bg6 {-80}
>>> 11077 0.042 0.43 3t+ 1.Nb5 a5
>>> 11273 0.043 0.46 3t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bf5 {-80}
>>> 11338 0.044 0.46 3. 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bf5 {-80}
>>> 14973 0.055 0.42 4t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bf5 a6 {-80}
>>> 22012 0.075 0.43 4t+ 1.Qd1 Qxd4 2.cxd4 Nxd4 {501}
>>> 23047 0.079 0.46 4t 1.Qd1 Nxd4 2.cxd4 Qb4 3.Bf5 {-80}
>>> 48476 0.135 0.46 4. 1.Qd1 Nxd4 2.cxd4 Qb4 3.Bf5 {-80}
>>> 64090 0.176 0.35 5t 1.Qd1 Nxd4 2.cxd4 Qc6 3.Qe1 b5 {-80}
>>> 67196 0.184 0.36 5t+ 1.Nb5 Nd4 2.cxd4 Qxd4 {180}
>>> 79874 0.219 0.67 5t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bc2 Nc4 3.Nd4 {-80}
>>> 142589 0.325 0.67 5. 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bc2 Nc4 3.Nd4 {-80}
>>> 210311 0.516 0.64 6t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Qd1 f6 3.b4 Qc6 {-80}
>>> 387948 0.859 0.65 6t+ 1.Qc2 Nxd4 2.cxd4 Qxd4 3.Bxd6 Kg7 4.Bxf8+ Kg8
>>> {270}
>>> 394571 0.874 0.70 6t 1.Qc2 Nxd4 2.cxd4 Qxc2 3.Bxc2 Kg7 4.Bf5 Bxf5
>>> 5.Rxa8 {70}
>>> 522542 1.162 0.70 6. 1.Qc2 Nxd4 2.cxd4 Qxc2 3.Bxc2 Kg7 4.Bf5 Bxf5
>>> 5.Rxa8 {70}
>>> 575743 1.276 0.54 7t 1.Qc2 Nxd4 2.cxd4 Qxc2 3.Bxc2 b6 4.Bxd6 Bb7
>>> 5.Bb8 {0}
>>> 654504 1.466 0.55 7t+ 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bf5 Bxf5 3.Rxa8 Nd3 4.Rxf8+ Kg7
>>> {420}
>>> 729294 1.671 0.64 7t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bc2 Nc4 3.Nd4 Ne5 4.Bf5 {-80}
>>> 1310670 2.757 0.64 7. 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bc2 Nc4 3.Nd4 Ne5 4.Bf5 {-80}
>>> 1701167 3.646 0.87 8t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Nxa8 exd3
>>> 5.Qd1 {60}
>>> 3033464 6.003 0.87 8. 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Nxa8 exd3
>>> 5.Qd1 {60}
>>> 3788322 7.587 1.05 9t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Nxa8 exd3
>>> 5.Rd8 b5 6.Rxd5 {140}
>>> 7542582 13.952 1.05 9. 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Nxa8 exd3
>>> 5.Rd8 b5 6.Rxd5 {140}
>>> 10307300 19.432 1.44 10t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Bxe4 dxe4
>>> 5.Nxa8 Qc6 6.Rd8 Bd7 {140}
>>> 18434843 33.211 1.44 10. 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Bxe4 dxe4
>>> 5.Nxa8 Qc6 6.Rd8 Bd7 {140}
>>> 23279977 42.811 1.55 11t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Bxe4 dxe4
>>> 5.Nxa8 Qc6 6.Rd8 Bd7 7.Qd1 {140}
>>> 45474172 1:19.6 1.55 11. 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Bxe4 dxe4
>>> 5.Nxa8 Qc6 6.Rd8 Bd7 7.Qd1 {140}
>>> 62641271 1:54.8 1.45 12t 1.Nb5 Ne5 2.Bxe5 dxe5 3.Nc7 e4 4.Bxe4 dxe4
>>> 5.Nxa8 Qc6 6.Rd8 Kg7 7.Qd1 Bc5 {140}
>>> 149487856 4:44.5 1.46 12t+ 1.Ne6 fxe6 2.Qd1 Ne7 3.Qh5 Kg7 4.Bh7 Qb6
>>> 5.Rxe7+ Kf6 6.Bxd6 g4 7.Qf7+ Kg5 8.Qg8+ Bg7
>>> 9.Rxg7+ Kf6 {350}
>>> 164825256 5:17.6 1.73 12t 1.Ne6 fxe6 2.Qd1 Bd7 3.Rxa8 Ne7 4.h4 Nc8 5.hxg5
>>> hxg5 6.Qh5 Be7 7.Qh7+ Kf8 8.Bg6 {80}
>>> 176964457 5:41.1 1.73 12. 1.Ne6 fxe6 2.Qd1 Bd7 3.Rxa8 Ne7 4.h4 Nc8 5.hxg5
>>> hxg5 6.Qh5 Be7 7.Qh7+ Kf8 8.Bg6 {80}
>>> 308712897 10:34.3 1.89 13t 1.Ne6 Bxe6 2.Rxa8 d4 3.Qxb7 dxc3 4.bxc3 Kg7
>>> 5.Bb5 Nd4 6.Qb8 Nxb5 7.Qxf8+ Kg6 8.a4 Nxc3
>>> 9.Bxd6 {160}
>>>
>>>Nb5 is yet another insipid, uninspiring, computer-chess pawn grab. Ne6 is a
>>>breathtaking GM style move that leaves Nb5 wallowing in the mire (to me anyway
>>>-- it may be that I simply don't see the beauty of Nb5).
>>>
>>>Ne6 is *grotesquely* superior in my book.
>>
>>I believe that Ne6 is not GM style move.
>>There is no reason to calculate complex lines of Ne6 when there is a simple way
>>to win material and the games.
>>
>>I believe that GM calculate complex lines when they need them to win the game
>>but they are smart enough not to do it when there is another simple way to win
>>because the target in the game is to win and it is better to be more sure of
>>winning.
>>
>>When you calculate a complex line there is a risk that you are wrong so it is a
>>bad idea to do it when you have another good option.
>>
>
>
> I disagree, Grandmasters often play moves that maybe slightly inferior to the
>best move, in hopes that their opponents may not find the best reply, kasparov
>for instance and Tal, certainly fritz and ferret calculations are much less
>risky.
I understand prefering a slightly inferior but complex position instead of
a n equal position that is probably a draw but it is a practical mistake not to
do the best move when you have a clear advantage.
Grandmasters got good results not because of doing practical mistakes so I
believe that most of them will play Nb5.
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.