Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 22:01:03 09/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2001 at 23:14:33, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On September 07, 2001 at 17:19:07, José Carlos wrote:
>
>> Last night, in one of my test games, Averno played ...Bxf4 in this position
>>(against another program):
>>
>>[D]4R3/p2r3r/1pNbRp2/2p2k1p/2P2PpP/PP4P1/K7/8 b - - 0 1
>>
>> The game ended soon:
>>
>>57. gxf4 g3 58. Re2 Rhg7 59. Re1 g2 60. Rg1 Rd2+ 61. Ka1 Rf2
>>62. Ree1 Kxf4 63. a4 Kg3 64. a5 Rc7 65. Nd8 bxa5 66. Kb1 Kxh4 67. Ka1 Kg3
>>68. Kb1 h4 69. Ne6 Rc6 70. Nd8 Rb6 71. Ne6 Rxb3+
>>{White resigns} 0-1
>>
>> 59. Re1 is a blunder, but I wonder if the sac is correct at all. It seems that
>>59. Rg2 is good enough for white (Averno plays Bxf4 by eval, it doesn't see the
>>pawn queening at all in search). Is my passed pawn eval too high here? What do
>>other programs think?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> José C.
>
>
>My first thought is that it is a bad idea. This kind of sac is not really safe
>unless you can see the king and pawn advancing pretty quickly. Otherwise the
>extra piece your opponent has is going to be used to win pawns and the game.
>
I think this is a case where the king and pawns advance pretty quickly. White's
extra knight looks pretty useless.
>Crafty won't play it, but it refuses because it doesn't like the idea of
>giving its opponent an extra piece to play with here...
How long did you let Crafty search?
It might take a *long* time, especially since some of the lines involve another
exchange sac by Black. Here's a nice example:
1 ... Bxf4!
2. gxf4 g3
3. Re1/Re2 Kg4
4. Ne7 Rxe7!
5. Rxe7 Rxe7
6. Rxe7 Kxh4 -+
This isn't White's only try, but I fiddled around in Chess Tiger for a few
minutes and couldn't find a decent defense.
-Peter
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.