Author: Slater Wold
Date: 16:41:25 03/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2002 at 00:36:23, Slater Wold wrote:
>The line to look at is:
>[D]4qrk1/5p2/pBn1b1pQ/1p2p3/4P3/bBPR4/P4PPP/6K1 b - - 0 3
>
>Which is better? f5 or Bc1? Do either save the position?
White(1): setboard 4qrk1/5p2/pBn1b1pQ/1p2p3/4P3/bBPR4/P4PPP/6K1 b - - 0 3
Black(1): go
clearing hash tables
time surplus 0.00 time limit 598:00 (598:00)
nss depth time score variation (1)
starting thread 1
6 0.09 -- 1. ... Qe7
6 0.14 0.00 1. ... Qe7 2. Rh3 Bxh3 3. Qxg6+ Kh8
4. Qh6+ Kg8 5. Qg6+
6 0.31 -1.13 1. ... Ne7 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Kf7
4. Qh7+ Kf6 5. Rf3+ Kg5 6. Be3+ Rf4
(4) 6-> 0.31 -1.13 1. ... Ne7 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Kf7
4. Qh7+ Kf6 5. Rf3+ Kg5 6. Be3+ Rf4
7 0.31 -- 1. ... Ne7
(3) 7 0.33 0.00 1. ... Ne7 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Kf7
4. Qh7+ Kf6 5. Rf3+ Kg5 6. Rg3+ Kf6
7. Rf3+
(4) 7-> 0.52 0.00 1. ... Ne7 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Kf7
4. Qh7+ Kf6 5. Rf3+ Kg5 6. Rg3+ Kf6
7. Rf3+
(3) 8 0.56 0.00 1. ... Ne7 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Kf7
4. Qh7+ Kf6 5. Rf3+ Kg5 6. Rg3+ Kf6
7. Rf3+
(4) 8-> 0.86 0.00 1. ... Ne7 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Kf7
4. Qh7+ Kf6 5. Rf3+ Kg5 6. Rg3+ Kf6
7. Rf3+
9 0.89 -- 1. ... Ne7
(3) 9 0.98 1.32 1. ... Ne7 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Kf7
4. Qh7+ Kf6 5. Rf3+ Nf5 6. exf5 exf5
7. h3 Rh8
9 3.69 1.18 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. exf5 Bxb3 4.
fxg6+ Ke7 5. axb3 Qb8 6. Qe3
9 4.81 1.07 1. ... Nb8 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Qd7
4. Qxg6+ Qg7 5. Qxe6+ Qf7 6. Qxe5 Qf6
7. Rg3+ Kf7 8. Qd5+ Qe6
(4) 9-> 4.98 1.07 1. ... Nb8 2. Bxe6 fxe6 3. Rh3 Qd7
4. Qxg6+ Qg7 5. Qxe6+ Qf7 6. Qxe5 Qf6
7. Rg3+ Kf7 8. Qd5+ Qe6
10 5.05 -- 1. ... Nb8
(3) 10 5.31 2.03 1. ... Nb8 2. Bxe6 Qxe6 3. Rh3 Qxh3
4. Qxh3 Kg7 5. c4 b4 6. Kf1 Kf6
10 8.42 ++ 1. ... f5!!
10-> 23.91 0.68 1. ... f57
11 32.55 ++ 1. ... f5!!
11-> 59.23 0.29 1. ... f57
12 1:18 0.57 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. exf5 Bxb3 4.
fxg6+ Ke7 5. axb3 Qd7 6. Qh7+ Ke6 7.
Qh5 Qg7 8. Rd3
12-> 1:26 0.57 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. exf5 Bxb3 4.
fxg6+ Ke7 5. axb3 Qd7 6. Qh7+ Ke6 7.
Qh5 Qg7 8. Rd3
13 2:08 0.51 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kg7 5. Bxe6 Qxe6 6. exf5 Qg8 7.
Qh6+ Kf7 8. fxg6+ Ke7 9. Rg3 Qxa2 10.
Qh4+ Ke8 11. Qe4
13-> 2:30 0.51 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kg7 5. Bxe6 Qxe6 6. exf5 Qg8 7.
Qh6+ Kf7 8. fxg6+ Ke7 9. Rg3 Qxa2 10.
Qh4+ Ke8 11. Qe4
14 6:17 0.80 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kg7 5. Bxe6 Qxe6 6. exf5 Qg8 7.
Qh6+ Kf7 8. fxg6+ Ke7 9. Qg5+ Ke6 10.
Qg4+ Ke7 11. Rd3 Rf6 <HT>
14-> 7:26 0.80 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kg7 5. Bxe6 Qxe6 6. exf5 Qg8 7.
Qh6+ Kf7 8. fxg6+ Ke7 9. Qg5+ Ke6 10.
Qg4+ Ke7 11. Rd3 Rf6 <HT>
15 18:17 0.62 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kg7 5. Bxe6 Qxe6 6. exf5 Qg8 7.
Qh6+ Kf7 8. fxg6+ Ke6 9. Rd3 Ne7 10.
c4 Bb4 11. cxb5 Qxg6
15-> 20:37 0.62 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kg7 5. Bxe6 Qxe6 6. exf5 Qg8 7.
Qh6+ Kf7 8. fxg6+ Ke6 9. Rd3 Ne7 10.
c4 Bb4 11. cxb5 Qxg6
16 56:36 0.92 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kg7 5. Bxe6 Qxe6 6. exf5 Qg8 7.
Qh6+ Kf7 8. fxg6+ Ke6 9. c4 Bb4 10.
cxb5 axb5 11. Rg3 Nd4 12. Qe3
16-> 65:03 0.92 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kg7 5. Bxe6 Qxe6 6. exf5 Qg8 7.
Qh6+ Kf7 8. fxg6+ Ke6 9. c4 Bb4 10.
cxb5 axb5 11. Rg3 Nd4 12. Qe3
17 167:13 0.62 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kf7 5. exf5 Bxb3 6. fxg6+ Ke6
7. Qg4+ Rf5 8. axb3 Ne7 9. g7 Ng8 10.
b4 Bc1 11. c4 Kf6 12. Rd3 Qf7
(2) 17-> 188:14 0.62 1. ... f5 2. Rh3 Kf7 3. Qh7+ Kf6 4.
Qh4+ Kf7 5. exf5 Bxb3 6. fxg6+ Ke6
7. Qg4+ Rf5 8. axb3 Ne7 9. g7 Ng8 10.
b4 Bc1 11. c4 Kf6 12. Rd3 Qf7
18 360:36 -- 1. ... f5
time=598:00 cpu=200% mat=-2 n=622584860 fh=40% nps=17k
ext-> chk=571753796 cap=124506433 pp=43325312 1rep=334318819 mate=
16960817
predicted=0 nodes=622584860 evals=641320335
endgame tablebase-> probes done=0 successful=0
hashing-> trans/ref=119% pawn=99% used=99%
SMP-> split=7357 stop=1317 data=12/32 cpu=1196:56 elap=598:00
Grrr. Wish it would have finished that fail. :(
f5 is better than Bc1, IMHO. (Which means crap btw.) But I think it prolongs
the loss. If that means anything. I'd like to see the next line though.
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.