Author: Janosch Zwerensky
Date: 04:14:35 11/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
>Hi all, > >in a blitz game I recently played on the chessbase server I got the following >position: > >[D] r5k1/2q4p/2b1p1p1/1p1pP1B1/1P1Pp1PP/2P2rn1/2B1Q1K1/R3R3 w - - 0 1 , > >in which I played Qxf3, which I think is best and gives white some advantage. >After playing out the first moves of the line in question, GambitTiger agrees >with that view of mine: > >[D] r5k1/2q4p/2b1p1p1/1p1pP1B1/1P1P2PP/2P2pK1/2B5/R3R3 b - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Gambit Tiger 2.0: > >32...Txa1 33.Txa1 Lb7 34.Ld2 Df7 35.Kf2 De7 36.g5 > ³ (-0.44) Tiefe: 7 00:00:00 54kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ta1 Dc8 35.Kf2 Lb7 36.Ta3 Df8 > ³ (-0.56) Tiefe: 7 00:00:00 64kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ta1 Lb7 35.Ld2 > ³ (-0.44) Tiefe: 8 00:00:00 78kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Te3 Dc4 35.Txf3 De2 36.Tf2 De1 37.Kg2 Dxc3 > = (0.22) Tiefe: 9 00:00:01 145kN >32...Txa1 33.Txa1 Lb7 34.Ld2 Df7 35.Kf2 Kg7 36.Ld1 De7 37.Lxf3 Dxh4+ 38.Kg2 > = (0.04) Tiefe: 9 00:00:01 190kN >32...h6 33.Lxh6 Kh7 34.Txa8 Lxa8 35.Ld2 Dc4 36.Kf2 Da2 37.Tc1 > = (-0.02) Tiefe: 9 00:00:01 226kN >32...h6 33.Lxh6 > = (-0.02) Tiefe: 10 00:00:02 341kN >32...h6 33.Lxh6 Txa1 34.Txa1 Le8 35.Ld2 De7 36.Ld1 f2 37.Kxf2 Dxh4+ 38.Kg2 Lc6 > ² (0.66) Tiefe: 11 00:00:04 545kN >32...Txa1 33.Txa1 h5 34.gxh5 Le8 35.Ld2 g5 36.hxg5 Lxh5 37.Kh2 Kf7 38.Tf1 > ² (0.38) Tiefe: 11 00:00:06 774kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Te3 Dc4 35.Txf3 De2 36.Lh6 De1+ 37.Kg2 De2+ 38.Tf2 >Dxg4+ 39.Kf1 Dh3+ 40.Ke2 Dg4+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 11 00:00:07 911kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Te3 Dc4 35.Txf3 Kg7 36.Le7 De2 37.Tf2 De3+ 38.Kg2 Dxc3 >39.Lf6+ Kf7 40.Lg5+ Ke8 > = (0.16) Tiefe: 12 00:00:13 1694kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ld2 Dc4 35.Kxf3 Da2 36.Tc1 Lc6 37.Kf2 Db2 38.g5 Kf7 >39.Kg2 Ke7 > ± (0.74) Tiefe: 13 00:00:24 3209kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ld2 Da7 35.Lb1 De7 36.Tf1 Lc6 37.Txf3 Kg7 38.Lg5 Dc7 >39.Kg2 h6 > ± (0.94) Tiefe: 14 00:01:11 9400kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ > ± (0.94) Tiefe: 15 00:02:58 23483kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ld2 Da7 35.Lb1 Lc6 36.Kxf3 Da3 37.Ke2 Db3 38.g5 Db2 >39.Ld3 Kf7 40.Tf1+ Ke7 > ± (1.00) Tiefe: 16 00:03:15 25901kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ld2 Dc4 35.Lb1 Lc6 36.Kxf3 Kg7 37.g5 Kf7 38.Kf2 Ke7 >39.Kg2 Ke8 > ± (1.00) Tiefe: 17 00:08:21 67589kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ld2 Dc4 35.Lb1 Lc6 36.Kxf3 Kg7 37.g5 Kf7 38.Kg2 Ke7 >39.Te3 Db3 40.Ld3 Db2 41.Te2 Kd7 > ± (1.02) Tiefe: 18 00:13:28 110781kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ld2 Dc4 35.Lb1 Lc6 36.Kxf3 Kg7 37.g5 Kf7 38.Kg2 Ke7 >39.Te3 Db3 40.Ld3 Db2 41.Te2 Kd7 > ± (1.02) Tiefe: 19 00:30:21 238298kN >32...Lb7 33.Txa8+ Lxa8 34.Ld2 Dc4 35.Lb1 Lc6 36.Kxf3 Kg7 37.g5 Kf7 38.Kg2 Ke7 >39.Te3 Db3 40.Ld3 Dd1 41.Le1 Dc1 > ± (1.12) Tiefe: 20 01:05:05 497524kN > >No program I tested so far has reproduced my choice in any reasonable amount of >time, with everyone going for Rxa8 in this position. For example, GT2 gives the >following analysis: > >[D] r5k1/2q4p/2b1p1p1/1p1pP1B1/1P1Pp1PP/2P2rn1/2B1Q1K1/R3R3 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Gambit Tiger 2.0: > >31.Txa8+ > µ (-1.26) Tiefe: 9 00:00:00 50kN >31.Txa8+ > -+ (-2.16) Tiefe: 9 00:00:01 117kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Lc6 33.Dc5 Df7 34.Ld1 Tf1 35.Txf1 Dxf1+ 36.Kxg3 Dg1+ >37.Kh3 > ³ (-0.68) Tiefe: 9 00:00:01 208kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Lc6 > ³ (-0.68) Tiefe: 10 00:00:01 224kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (-0.15) Tiefe: 11 00:00:08 1219kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (-0.15) Tiefe: 12 00:00:15 2112kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (-0.15) Tiefe: 13 00:00:33 4924kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (-0.15) Tiefe: 14 00:01:08 10170kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Lc6 33.Dc5 Df7 34.Dxc6 Tf2+ 35.Kh3 Sh5 36.Lxe4 dxe4 >37.Dxe4 Sf4+ 38.Kg3 Sd5 39.Te2 > ² (0.34) Tiefe: 15 00:05:22 49144kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Lc6 33.Dc5 Df7 34.Lf6 Txf6 35.exf6 Dxf6 36.Ld1 Df4 37.Dxc6 >Dd2+ 38.Te2 Sxe2 39.De8+ > ² (0.41) Tiefe: 16 00:12:28 115805kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.Lh6 Dxc2+ 36.Kh3 Dc6 >37.Dxc6 Lxc6 38.Kxg3 Tf3+ > = (0.24) Tiefe: 17 01:01:05 592067kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.Lh6 Dxc2+ 36.Kh3 Dc6 >37.Dxc6 Lxc6 38.Kxg3 Tf3+ > ² (0.26) Tiefe: 18 02:08:00 1246880kN >31.Txa8+ Lxa8 32.Dxb5 Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.Lh6 Dxc2+ 36.Kh3 Dc6 >37.Dxc6 Lxc6 38.Kxg3 Tf3+ > ± (0.72) Tiefe: 19 07:35:39 4365619kN > >Now one might argue that GT2 failed high here and that, thus, Rxa8 might also >give white a strong advantage (and quite possibly a stronger one than the move I >played). Though I am not a good enough tactician to see through the >complications happening in this variation, I doubt that, still; after playing >out the first moves of that alternative to the text line, GT2 again seems to >agree with my views: > >[D] b5k1/2q4p/4p1p1/1Q1pP1B1/1P1Pp1PP/2P2rn1/2B3K1/4R3 b - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Gambit Tiger 2.0: > >32...Lc6 > = (-0.14) Tiefe: 8 00:00:00 56kN >32...Lc6 33.Dc5 Df7 34.Dxc6 Tf2+ 35.Kh3 h6 36.Dc8+ Kh7 37.Kxg3 Txc2 > = (0.16) Tiefe: 8 00:00:00 63kN >32...Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 8 00:00:00 127kN >32...Dxc3 33.De8+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 9 00:00:01 172kN >32...Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 10 00:00:04 633kN >32...Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 11 00:00:12 1918kN >32...Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 12 00:00:44 5451kN >32...Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 13 00:02:07 14686kN >32...Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 14 00:08:29 63682kN >32...Dxc3 33.De8+ Tf8 34.Dxe6+ Tf7 35.De8+ Tf8 36.De6+ > = (0.15) Tiefe: 15 00:24:20 197699kN > >I would now be interested to see what analysis other programs (and human >chessplayers) give on the position given at the top of this article ;). > >Regards, >Janosch.
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.