Author: Peter Berger
Date: 02:29:51 09/23/01
I tried the suite with Bringer up to 1 minute/move. 1 second/move 76/184 5 seconds/move 109/184 10 seconds/move 124/184 30 seconds/move 143/184 1 minute/move 156/184 The 28 positions it couldn't find in time: 2b2r2/1p2q1k1/r3pppp/4n2P/p3N3/1B4Q1/PPP3P1/3R1R1K w - - bm Rxf6; id "ECM.1057"; r1bq1rk1/pp2bp1p/2p2np1/3p2B1/3P4/2NQ2N1/PPP2PPP/4RRK1 w - - bm Rxe7; id "ECM.1068"; b3r3/q2B2k1/3Q2p1/1p5p/3pP3/5P2/1p4PP/5RK1 b - - bm d3+; id "ECM.1080"; 2r3k1/pp2n3/6pQ/4q3/8/2P1p1P1/P5BP/3R2K1 w - - bm Bd5+; id "ECM.1082"; 2r2rk1/1p1q1ppp/1p3n2/3p1N2/4n3/1N3Q2/PPP2PPP/R2R2K1 w - - bm Rxd5; id "ECM.1134"; 2r1rbk1/5pp1/bq5p/1pnBPN2/6Q1/N7/5PPP/R2R2K1 w - - bm Bxf7+; id "ECM.1188"; 2b3k1/p4ppp/7q/2Q5/8/P3r1P1/1r4BP/R3R1K1 b - - bm Bb7; id "ECM.1197"; 2r1r1k1/pp1nbpp1/4pn1p/q3NN1P/P1pP1B2/2P5/1PQ2PP1/R3R1K1 w - - bm Nxg7; id "ECM.1227"; 1r3rk1/6p1/p1pb1qPp/3p4/4nPR1/2N4Q/PPP4P/2K1BR2 b - - bm Rxb2; id "ECM.1229"; rnb2rk1/pp2bppp/2p5/q7/4NN2/4B1QP/PPP3P1/2KR3R w - - bm Rd5; id "ECM.1259"; 2rbr2k/1pq2ppp/p3bn2/4p1B1/P3P3/2N3Q1/1PP1B1PP/3R1R1K w - - bm Rxd8; id "ECM.1304"; 6k1/pbq2pp1/4r2p/8/3prb2/1P1Q3P/PN2BPP1/3RRK2 b - - bm Bd2; id "ECM.1350"; r1b3k1/3nqp1p/p1n1p1pP/3pP1N1/Pp3QN1/1Pr3P1/2PR1P2/4RBK1 w - - bm Rxd5; id "ECM.1403"; 2r4r/1q1kb1p1/4p2p/3pP3/np6/3RBP2/NPP2Q1P/1K2R3 b - - bm Nc3+; id "ECM.1408"; 2kr2r1/2pqbp1p/p1n1b3/1P1pP3/4n3/1BP1BN2/1P4PP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - bm Bh3; id "ECM.1426"; r1b2rk1/pp4bp/2p3p1/4q2n/NQPN1p1P/1P5n/P3PPB1/2BRRK2 b - - bm f3; id "ECM.1438"; r2q1rk1/pb1nbpp1/1pp1pn1p/3pN3/2PPP3/2N1B1P1/PP3PBP/R2Q1RK1 w - - bm Nxc6; id "ECM.1525"; 2r2rk1/pp2pp1p/2np2p1/q4P2/2PBP1b1/2N5/PP1Q2PP/R4RK1 w - - bm h3; id "ECM.1527"; 1rb1r1k1/p1p1qppp/2pb4/8/2P3n1/4P1P1/PB2BP1P/R1QN1RK1 b - - bm Nxh2; id "ECM.1533"; 2r1rbk1/p1Bq1ppp/Ppn1b3/1Npp4/B7/3P2Q1/1PP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nxa7; id "ECM.1573"; 8/pR4pk/1b6/2p5/N1p5/8/PP1r2PP/6K1 b - - bm Rxb2; id "ECM.1578"; r2qrbk1/5ppp/pn1p4/np2P1P1/3p4/5N2/PPB2PP1/R1BQR1K1 w - - bm Bxh7+; id "ECM.1592"; 1r1qr1k1/5p1p/1n2p1p1/pp1pP1P1/2pP1BB1/PnP3P1/1P3PK1/1R1Q3R w - - bm Rxh7; id "ECM.1601"; 5r1k/ppp2qnp/1n1p1N1Q/3Ppb2/2P4P/7B/PP6/2KR2R1 w - - bm Nxh7; id "ECM.1604"; r1b2r1k/ppppq1pp/2n1n3/6N1/2B2P2/4B3/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - bm Nxh7; id "ECM.1612"; rn3rk1/pp1bppbp/1qp3p1/4P1N1/PP1PB3/2P1B3/4Q1PP/R4RK1 w - - bm Nxh7; id "ECM.1617"; r2q3r/2pkb1p1/p2p1n2/4p1p1/Pp2P1P1/1QP5/1P1P2PP/RNB2RK1 b - - bm Rxh2; id "ECM.1621"; 2rq1rk1/pp1bnpbp/4p1p1/3pP1N1/3P2Q1/2PB4/P4PPP/R1B1R1K1 w - - bm Nxh7; id "ECM.1622"; Possible cooks: [D]2r2rk1/1p1q1ppp/1p3n2/3p1N2/4n3/1N3Q2/PPP2PPP/R2R2K1 w - - bm Rxd5; id "ECM.1134"; It is no problem to find Rxd5 here - but is it really the best move ? 0:00:00.2 ( 7/13) 46412 0.19 1.Nbd4 Rfe8 2.Re1 Ra8 3.c3 (Mat=0,50=0) 0:00:00.3 ( 7/13) 84545 0.20 1.Rxd5 (Mat=100,50=0) 0:00:00.4 ( 7/15) 107045 0.69 1.Rxd5 Ng5 2.Rxd7 (Mat=1100,50=0) 0:00:00.6 ( 8/17) 184103 0.50 1.Rxd5 Qe8 2.Nd6 Nxd6 3.Rxd6 Rxc2 4.Rxb6 Qe2 (Mat=100,50=1) 0:00:01.6 ( 9/21) 414101 0.67 1.Rxd5 Ng5 2.Rxd7 0:00:03.5 (10/24) 1006908 0.45 1.Rxd5 Qe8 2.Nd6 Nxd6 3.Rxd6 Qe5 4.Rxb6 (Mat=200,50=0) 0:00:07.9 (11/27) 2212733 0.48 1.Rxd5 Qe8 2.Nd6 0:00:16.8 (12/28) 5107430 0.29 1.Rxd5 Qe8 2.Nd6 0:00:55.6 (12/33) 15894314 0.30 1.Nbd4 (Mat=0,50=1) 0:01:16.1 (12/33) 21718210 0.31 1.c3 (Mat=0,50=0) I tried with a few programs and my own brain: Rxd5, Nbd4 and also Ne3 to some extent all look very promising. My impression is that this testposition is still correct but I can't prove. If I had to play this position myself after looking at some of the lines I'd definitely prefer 1.Nbd4 :). [D]2b3k1/p4ppp/7q/2Q5/8/P3r1P1/1r4BP/R3R1K1 b - - bm Bb7; id "ECM.1197"; This one looks wrong. 0:00:00.4 ( 7/24) 124714 5.95 1...Rxg2+ 2.Kxg2 Rxg3+ 3.Kxg3 (Mat=500,50=0) 0:00:00.6 ( 7/24) 145779 5.96 1...Bb7 (Mat=-100,50=1) 0:00:00.7 ( 7/24) 199830 6.46 1...Bb7 (Mat=-100,50=1) 0:00:00.9 ( 8/24) 290502 6.86 1...Bb7 (Mat=-100,50=1) 0:00:01.3 ( 8/24) 376485 7.26 1...Bb7 (Mat=-100,50=1) 0:00:02.6 ( 8/24) 743292 13.88 1...Bb7 2.Qc8+ 0:00:04.5 ( 9/24) 1318156 14.68 1...Bb7 (Mat=-100,50=1) 0:00:06.2 ( 9/24) 1844565 17.00 1...Bb7 2.Qc8+ 0:00:08.9 (10/28) 2660048 17.40 1...Bb7 (Mat=-100,50=1) 0:00:09.8 (10/28) 3070192 17.80 1...Bb7 (Mat=-100,50=1) 0:00:14.2 (10/34) 4396701 17.00 1...Bb7 2.Qc8+ (Mat=-100,50=2) 0:00:18.7 (10/34) 5648146 17.01 1...Rxg2+ (Mat=-440,50=0) 0:00:19.6 (10/34) 5694189 17.52 1...Rxg2+ (Mat=-440,50=0) 0:00:21.3 (11/34) 6371918 18.32 1...Rxg2+ (Mat=-440,50=0) If I feed this into Fritz it announces mate in 12 after Rxg2+ in 7 seconds. [D]2r1r1k1/pp1nbpp1/4pn1p/q3NN1P/P1pP1B2/2P5/1PQ2PP1/R3R1K1 w - - bm Nxg7; id "ECM.1227"; I think Bringer's solution here is even prettier than the original one ;-) 0:00:44.1 (13/40) 12455642 0.00 1.Nxd7 Nxd7 2.Rxe6 Both lead to a forced draw as far as I can see - or is there some hidden win after Nxg7 ? [D]rnb2rk1/pp2bppp/2p5/q7/4NN2/4B1QP/PPP3P1/2KR3R w - - bm Rd5; id "ECM.1259"; This one looks wrong but this has been discussed before. 0:00:00.5 ( 7/16) 124311 -0.59 1.Bd4 f6 2.Kb1 Qb5 3.Nc3 Qc4 (Mat=-105,50=4) 0:00:00.8 ( 7/20) 198362 -0.58 1.Nd5 (Mat=-105,50=1) 0:00:00.9 ( 7/20) 221167 -0.23 1.Nd5 cxd5 2.Bh6 g6 3.Qe5 (Mat=-440,50=1) 0:00:01.6 ( 8/22) 350411 0.17 1.Nd5 (Mat=-105,50=1) 0:00:01.9 ( 8/22) 482997 0.57 1.Nd5 (Mat=-105,50=1) 0:00:03.4 ( 8/30) 875358 1.45 1.Nd5 Bh4 2.Nef6+ Bxf6 3.Nxf6+ Kh8 4.Qd6 Nd7 5.Nxd7 (Mat=235,50=0) 0:00:05.3 ( 9/30) 1378602 1.46 1.Nd5 Bh4 2.Nef6+ Bxf6 3.Nxf6+ Kh8 4.Qd6 Nd7 0:00:08.8 (10/30) 2302704 1.06 1.Nd5 Bh4 (Mat=-105,50=2) 0:00:11.5 (10/30) 2916154 1.06 1.Nd5 Bh4 2.Nef6+ (Mat=-105,50=3) 0:00:25.7 (11/34) 7039167 1.46 1.Nd5 (Mat=-105,50=1) 0:00:39.8 (11/34) 11031090 1.86 1.Nd5 (Mat=-105,50=1) [D]2kr2r1/2pqbp1p/p1n1b3/1P1pP3/4n3/1BP1BN2/1P4PP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - bm Bh3; id "ECM.1426"; Unclear. 0:00:48.6 (11/29) 12622358 -0.45 1...axb5 2.Qd3 Bh3 3.Ra8+ Nb8 4.Ne1 Be6 5.Nd2 f5 6.exf6 Nxf6 7.Ra7 (Mat=0,50=1) Der Bringer obviously doesn't understand this completely but the axb5 idea _followed_ by Bh3 seems to be just as good as the immediate Bh3. Analysis with chessprograms always led to a quick 0.00 in either case. 1...Bh3 is the principle move, but is it the only one ? [D]2r2rk1/pp2pp1p/2np2p1/q4P2/2PBP1b1/2N5/PP1Q2PP/R4RK1 w - - bm h3; id "ECM.1527"; It seems 1.Qh6 is just as good as 1.h3 . 0:00:00.8 ( 8/16) 215876 0.15 1.f6 exf6 2.Bxf6 Qc5+ 3.Rf2 Qxc4 4.Qxd6 0:00:01.3 ( 8/20) 369391 0.66 1.h3 (Mat=0,50=0) 0:00:02.7 ( 9/22) 732766 0.96 1.h3 Nxd4 2.Qxd4 e5 3.Qe3 Bxf5 4.exf5 Rxc4 5.f6 (Mat=135,50=0) 0:00:04.5 (10/22) 1205944 0.90 1.h3 Nxd4 2.Qxd4 e5 3.Qd2 Bxf5 4.exf5 Qb6+ 0:00:10.7 (11/29) 3128990 1.07 1.h3 Nxd4 2.Qxd4 e5 3.Qd5 Qb6+ 4.Rf2 Rc5 5.Qd3 gxf5 (Mat=-105,50=0) 0:00:21.3 (11/29) 5898800 1.08 1.Qh6 (Mat=0,50=1) 0:00:43.4 (11/30) 12099591 1.55 1.Qh6 f6 2.fxg6 Qh5 3.gxh7+ Kh8 4.Qe3 b6 5.Nd5 (Mat=200,50=1) 1.Qh6 Nxd4 2.Nd5 Rfe8 3.f6 Ne6 4.fxe7 and smash. [D]r1b2r1k/ppppq1pp/2n1n3/6N1/2B2P2/4B3/PPP3PP/R2Q1RK1 w - - bm Nxh7; id "ECM.1612"; I don't really understand this position. 1.Nxh7 Kxh7 2.Qh5+ Kg8 3.f5 Ne5 4.Bb3 Qe8 5. Qh4 probably ? Nice position. 1.Bxe6 dxe6 2.Qd3 g6 3.Rad1 - nice position,too. 1.Qh5 g6 2.Qh6 Qg7 3.Qxg7+ etc as Crafty suggested - not bad either. Is there some original analysis availlable explaining it? 0:01:26.4 (13/35) 24211223 0.64 1.Bxe6 dxe6 2.Qd3 g6 3.Rad1 Rf5 4.Qc3+ Kg8 (Mat=0,50=4) The other positions all look like they have a nice and singular solution. Regards, pete
This page took 0.01 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.