Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:38:19 09/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2001 at 01:25:06, Michel Langeveld wrote: >On September 24, 2001 at 18:40:34, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On September 24, 2001 at 01:49:35, Michel Langeveld wrote: >> >>Nxh7 is clearly better: >> >>00:00 0 0 6 (0) 1 -0.143 Rf1xf7 Rf8xf7 Ng5xf7 Kg8xf7 >>00:00 0 0 12 (0) 1 -0.102 Ng5xh7 Kg8xh7 >>00:00 0 0 17 (0) 1 2.636 Rf1-f2 >>00:00 0 0 19 (0) 1 3.124 Qe2-f3 >>00:00 0 0 20 (0) 1 3.126 Qe2-f2 >>00:00 0 0 106 (0) 2 2.043 Qe2-f2 f7-f5 >>++ e2-f3 >>00:00 0 0 248 (0) 2 2.051 Qe2-f3 f7-f5 >>++ e2-c4 >>00:00 0 0 731 (0) 2 2.260 Qe2-c4 Bd7-e8 >>++ d4-d5 >>00:00 0 0 885 (0) 2 2.413 d4-d5 Bd7-g4 >>++ a4-a5 >>00:00 0 0 1034 (0) 2 2.701 a4-a5 Qb6-c7 >>00:00 0 0 2105 (0) 3 3.146 a4-a5 Qb6-c7 Qe2-f2 >>00:00 0 0 4632 (102) 4 2.295 a4-a5 Qb6-c7 Qe2-a2 Bd7-e8 >>00:00 0 0 30305 (5471) 5 2.425 a4-a5 Qb6-c7 Qe2-a2 Bd7-e8 Be4-d3 >>00:01 0 0 114634 (13415) 6 2.180 a4-a5 Qb6-c7 Qe2-a2 Bd7-e8 Be4-d3 Nb8-a6 >>++ e2-c4 >>++ e2-f2 >>00:02 0 0 209298 (36014) 6 2.320 Qe2-f2 f7-f5 Qf2-a2 Kg8-h8 a4-a5 Qb6-c7 Be4-d3 >> >>00:07 0 0 718889 (154236) 7 1.913 Qe2-f2 a7-a5 Ra1-b1 f7-f5 e5xf6 Bg7xf6 Qf2-a2 >>Kg8-h8 >>++ a4-a5 >>00:11 0 0 1034765 (204357) 7 2.348 a4-a5 Qb6-d8 Qe2-f2 Bd7-e8 e5-e6 f7-f6 Ng5-f3 >> >>00:21 0 0 2051958 (403118) 8 2.308 a4-a5 Qb6-d8 Qe2-f2 Nb8-a6 Be4-d3 Bd7-e8 Bd3- >>c4 e7-e6 >>01:00 0 0 6086264 (776132) 9 2.296 a4-a5 Qb6-d8 Qe2-f2 e7-e6 Qf2-f4 f7-f5 e5xf6 >>Rf8xf6 Qf4-h4 >>++ e2-f2 >>01:20 0 0 8205941 (889111) 9 2.301 Qe2-f2 Bd7-e8 Qf2-h4 h7-h6 Ng5-h3 a7-a5 Qh4xe >>7 a5xb4 Qe7xb4 Qb6xb4 c3xb4 >>03:57 0 0 23944783 (4685193) 10 2.359 Qe2-f2 a7-a5 e5-e6 f7xe6 Qf2-h4 h7-h6 Be4x >>g6 Rf8-f6 Rf1xf6 e7xf6 Ng5-h7 a5xb4 Nh7xf6 Kg8-f8 >>10:59 0 0 67045582 (19419930) 11 2.575 Qe2-f2 Nb8-a6 Be4-d3 Bd7-e8 Bd3-c4 Qb6-d8 >> Ng5xf7 Be8xf7 Bc4xf7 Kg8-h8 Qf2-h4 Na6-c7 >>22:30 0 0 135272571 (36406481) 12 2.995 Qe2-f2 Bd7-e8 Qf2-h4 h7-h6 Ng5-f3 a7-a5 >>Be3xh6 f7-f6 Ra1-b1 Qb6-c7 Bh6xg7 Kg8xg7 >>++ g5-h7 >>25:12 0 0 151503190 (37147754) 12 3.988 Ng5xh7 Kg8xh7 Qe2-h5 Kh7-g8 Be4xg6 f7xg6 >> Qh5xg6 Rf8xf1 Ra1xf1 c6-c5 Rf1-f6 Kg8-h8 Rf6xb6 a7xb6 Qg6xb6 c5xd4 Qb6-d8 Kh8-h >>7 c3xd4 >>28:45 0 0 172404675 (38679359) 13 3.988 Ng5xh7 Kg8xh7 Qe2-h5 Kh7-g8 Be4xg6 f7xg6 >> Qh5xg6 Rf8xf1 Ra1xf1 c6-c5 Rf1-f6 Kg8-h8 Rf6xb6 a7xb6 Qg6xb6 c5xd4 Qb6-d8 Kh8- > >You are right. Nxh7 is better. It can lead forced to a score of 5.xx >e6 can lead to 3.xx forced. Even though this one is (undoubtably) correct, I am never firmly convinced until it is proven that the "better" move is a checkmate and the "worse" move is not a checkmate. It is rare for a sudden swing of +200 centipawns in an eval, but it definitely does happen. Will a human actually notice if there is a tactical shot 20 plies deep that starts off not quite as good as an alternative? Maybe, but also it might be missed even by a super GM. All test positions not ending in proven checkmates contain a great deal of speculation.
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.