Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:41:35 06/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 05:51:07, pavel wrote:
>>>
>>>[Event "HLCC-3"]
>>>[Site "home"]
>>>[Date "2002.06.05"]
>>>[Round "10.1"]
>>>[White "Fritz 7"]
>>>[Black "Hiarcs 8"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[ECO "B45"]
>>>[WhiteElo "2500"]
>>>[BlackElo "2500"]
>>>[PlyCount "105"]
>>>[EventDate "2002.05.25"]
>>>[Source "Mahamood"]
>>>
>>>1. d4 {1} 1... e6 {0} 2. e4 {0} 2... c5 {0} 3. Nf3 {0} 3... cxd4 {0} 4. Nxd4 {0
>>>} 4... Nc6 {0} 5. Nc3 {0} 5... Nf6 {0} 6. Nxc6 {0} 6... bxc6 {0} 7. e5 {0} 7...
>>>Nd5 {0} 8. Ne4 {0} 8... Qc7 {0} 9. f4 {0} 9... Qb6 {0} 10. c4 {0} 10... Bb4+ {0
>>>} 11. Ke2 {0} 11... Ba6 {0} 12. Kf3 {0} 12... f5 {0} 13. exf6 {0} 13... Nxf6 {0
>>>} 14. c5 {0} 14... Bxc5 {0.25/15 2835}
>>
>>
>>It seems that hiarcs blundered in the first move out of book.
>>
>>I believe that 14...Qa5 is the right move but I did not give my programs a long
>>tiem to analyze.
>>
>>
>>I believe that most programs have better positional understanding than Hiarcs8
>>and they know that a piece is clearly more important than 2 pawns something that
>>hiarcs does not seem to know here based on it's evaluation.
>>
>>Fritz7 proves again that nodes per second mean nothing and shows better
>>positional understanding than Hiarcs8.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Hiarcs8 spent 47minutes in this position.
>I am not sure if Qa5 is a better move, almost all program I used to analyze this
>position is agreeing with hiarcs8, but they agains i didnt make it search for
>along time.
>
>Fritz 7 - Hiarcs 8
>r3k2r/p2p2pp/bqp1pn2/2P5/1b2NP2/5K2/PP4PP/R1BQ1B1R b kq - 0 1
>
>Analysis by Shredder 6.02:
>
>14...Nxe4 15.cxb6 Bxf1
> ² (0.27) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00
>14...Nxe4 15.cxb6 Bxf1
> ± (1.35) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00
>14...Nxe4 15.cxb6 Bxf1 16.Qxf1
> +- (6.19) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Bxa6
> +- (4.88) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Bxa6
> +- (4.34) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Nxd7
> ³ (-0.58) Depth: 1/2 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Nxd7
> ³ (-0.58) Depth: 2/4 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Nxd7
> ³ (-0.58) Depth: 3/6 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Nxe6 dxe6 17.Rxf1
> ³ (-0.48) Depth: 4/8 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 0-0 16.Bxa6 Qb3+ 17.axb3
> = (-0.23) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 0-0 16.Bxa6 Qb3+ 17.axb3
> ² (0.27) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Bxg2+ 17.Kxg2
> ² (0.60) Depth: 5/10 00:00:00
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Qb4 17.Rxf1 Qe4+ 18.Kg3 0-0
> ² (0.64) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qf1 Qxf1+ 18.Rxf1 Bxc5
> ² (0.63) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qxd7+ Kxd7 18.Rd1+ Kc7 19.Rd7+ Kxd7
> ² (0.28) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00
>14...Qa5 15.Nd6+ Kf8 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Be3 Kg8 18.Rf1
> = (0.09) Depth: 6/12 00:00:00
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Be3 0-0 18.Qxd7 Rae8 19.Kf2
> ² (0.34) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 76kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qd6 Rg8 18.Rd1 0-0-0 19.Be3
> ² (0.51) Depth: 7/14 00:00:00 96kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Qb4 17.Rxf1 0-0 18.g4 Rab8
> ² (0.50) Depth: 7/14 00:00:01 122kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Be3 Bxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Nd5 18.Qd4 Nxe3+ 19.Qxe3 Qxb2+
>20.Kh3
> ² (0.39) Depth: 7/14 00:00:01 159kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Qb4 17.Rxf1 Kf8 18.Ke3 Qb6+ 19.Nxb6 Nd5+ 20.Nxd5
> ² (0.64) Depth: 8/16 00:00:02 294kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Qb5 17.Rxf1 0-0 18.g4 d6
> ± (0.72) Depth: 8/16 00:00:02 366kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qd6 Rg8 18.Qxc6 dxc6
> ± (0.71) Depth: 8/16 00:00:02 403kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qd6 Rg8 18.Rd1 0-0-0 19.g3 Qb5
> ² (0.36) Depth: 8/16 00:00:02 433kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qd6 Qc4 18.Rd1 0-0-0 19.Be3 f5
> = (0.18) Depth: 8/16 00:00:03 478kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qd6 Qc4 18.Rd1 0-0-0 19.Be3 f5 20.Kf2
>Qxc5
> ² (0.43) Depth: 9/18 00:00:03 532kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qd6 Qc4 18.Rd1 0-0-0 19.Be3 Rhg8 20.g4
> ² (0.48) Depth: 9/18 00:00:03 608kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Qd4 Qb5 18.Be3 0-0-0 19.a3 Ba5 20.b4 e5
>21.Qd6
> ² (0.44) Depth: 10/20 00:00:06 1214kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nd6+ Kf8 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Be3 Nd5 18.Qd4 Kg8 19.Rhc1 Rb8 20.g3 Ba5
> ² (0.61) Depth: 11/22 00:00:17 3324kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Bxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Qb4 18.Re1 0-0 19.Qd3 Qxe1
> ² (0.60) Depth: 11/22 00:00:20 3890kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Bxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Qb4 18.Re1 0-0 19.Nc3 Rae8 20.Qa4
> ² (0.59) Depth: 11/22 00:00:25 4972kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Bxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Qb4 18.Re1 0-0 19.Nc3 Rae8 20.Qd2
>Qc5 21.Qf2
> ² (0.59) Depth: 12/24 00:00:46 9687kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nd6+ Kf8 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Be3 Nd5 18.Qd4 Kg8 19.Rhc1
> ² (0.58) Depth: 12/24 00:00:53 11202kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nd6+ Kf8 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Be3 Nd5 18.Qd4 Kg8 19.g3 Rf8 20.a3 Ba5
>21.Rhd1 Rf6
> ² (0.39) Depth: 12/24 00:01:02 13028kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nd6+ Kf8 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Be3 Nd5 18.Qd4 Kg8 19.g3 Rf8 20.Rhd1 Nxe3
>21.Qxe3 g5 22.Rf1 gxf4
> ² (0.64) Depth: 13/26 00:01:23 17547kN
>14...Qa5 15.Nd6+ Kf8 16.Bxa6 Qxa6 17.Be3 Nd5 18.Qd4 Kg8 19.g3 Rf8 20.Rhd1 Qa5
>21.Qxd5 exd5
> ² (0.64) Depth: 13/26 00:01:41 21266kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Bxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Qb4 18.Re1 0-0 19.Nc3 Nd5 20.Nxd5
>cxd5 21.h3
> ² (0.63) Depth: 13/26 00:01:58 24566kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Bxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Qb4 18.Re1 0-0 19.Nc3 Nd5 20.Nxd5
>cxd5 21.b3
> ² (0.59) Depth: 13/26 00:02:28 30264kN
>14...Bxc5 15.Nxc5 Bxf1 16.Na4 Bxg2+ 17.Kxg2 Qb4 18.Re1 0-0 19.Nc3 Nd5 20.Nxd5
>cxd5 21.Qd2 Rxf4
> ² (0.54) Depth: 14/28 00:04:46 58075kN
>
>(Mahamood, home 06.06.2002)
>
>
>also 33...Qd6 && 21...a6 could be considered as the turning point of the game.
>
>IMO in most of the games Fritz7 won simply by outserching hiarcs8.
>
>pavs
I do not understand it.
It is clear that after Bxc5 white gets a piece for 2 pawns.
I doubt if Fritz wins by outsearching Hiarcs(plies mean nothing and I believe
that the main advantage of fritz relative to hiarcs is simply a better
evaluation function).
I see no reason for program to evaluate it as 0.25 pawns for white(hiarcs) or as
0.54 pawns for white(shredder).
Fritz's evaluation of 0.72 pawns for white seems to be more realistic and it
does not seem to be a result of outsearching because hiarcs continud to see low
scores for white again and again(the scores in the next moves were 0.23 and
0.30).
Uri
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.