Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:13:32 09/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2002 at 19:43:39, Terry Ripple wrote: >On September 02, 2002 at 14:13:18, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On September 02, 2002 at 14:07:18, Terry Ripple wrote: >> >>>On September 02, 2002 at 13:12:39, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>>On September 02, 2002 at 00:56:19, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>> >>>>>[D]r2q1r1k/p2bb3/1pn1p1Q1/4P3/2pP4/2P5/P4PPP/1RB2RK1 w - - 0 19 >>>>> >>>>>best move is Re1!!, which Brutus played in tournament level >>>>>(Qh5+ seems to lead to draw) >>>>>in my AMD 450 Mhz no program finds Re1 in 1 hour (Goliath 3.6 took 61 min) >>>>> >>>>>Jouni >>>> >>>> >>>>I'm pretty sure Fritz 7 wouldn't find it in under an hour. >>>> >>>>Here's a quick analysis: >>>> >>>> >>>>1.Re1! >>>> >>>> [or 1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ Rxg8 6.f4 +-] >>>> >>>>1...Be8 2.Qh6+ Kg8 3.Re3 Nxe5 >>>> >>>> [3...Bh4 4.Re4 Bxf2+ 5.Kh1 Nxe5 6.Rxe5 Bxd4 7.Rg5+ Qxg5 8.Bxg5 Bg7 >>>> 9.Qxe6+ Bf7 10.Qg4 +-] >>>> >>>>4.Qxe6+ Rf7 5.Rg3+ Kh8 6.Bf4 Nf3+ 7.gxf3 Bf6 8.Be5 +- >>>---------------------------------- >>>I'am only using an AMD 266 Mhz with 64 Ram! I let Fritz run for almost 4 hours >>>which should simulate a faster (1,000 Mhz) processor running around 1 hour. >>> >>>Fritz 7 didn't find "Re1", but the line it uses wins back a Rook and the passed >>>pawns on the Kingside look dangerous for Black in the ending if played correctly >>> >>>Regards, >>> Terry >>> >>> New position >>>r2q1r1k/p2bb3/1pn1p1Q1/4P3/2pP4/2P5/P4PPP/1RB2RK1 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>Analysis by Fritz 7: >>> >>>1.Qh5+ >>> ± (1.38) depth: 7/24 00:00:00 31kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Bf6 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Bxf8 Bxe5 5.Qh5+ Kg8 >>> +- (1.41) depth: 8/19 00:00:00 60kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Bf6 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Bxf8 Bxe5 5.Qh5+ Kg8 6.dxe5 Qxf8 >>> +- (1.41) depth: 9/23 00:00:01 140kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qh5 Be8 6.Qh3 Bg6 >>> +- (1.41) depth: 10/23 00:00:03 341kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qf3 Qg6 6.Qh3 Kg8 7.f4 >>> ± (1.16) depth: 11/27 00:00:09 1053kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qf3 Qg6 6.Qh3 Kg8 >>> ± (1.16) depth: 12/33 00:00:33 3846kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qf3 Qh7 6.Be3 >>> ± (1.10) depth: 13/36 00:03:49 25279kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ >>> ± (1.10) depth: 14/36 00:08:29 57986kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ >>> ± (1.07) depth: 15/39 00:23:03 161173kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ >>> ± (1.04) depth: 16/43 01:22:05 574067kN >>>1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ >>> ± (0.97) depth: 17/45 03:41:49 1573278kN >> >> >>The line you give is identical to the line I showed in the first variation. It >>is a perfectly good line and should also win the game. Too bad this position >>didn't have just a single winning line. >------------------------------------------- >Searching for over 12 hours Fritz 7 still says that Qh5+ is a good move and i >also believe that it's a good move! > >Regards, > Terry > >New position >r2q1r1k/p2bb3/1pn1p1Q1/4P3/2pP4/2P5/P4PPP/1RB2RK1 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Fritz 7: > >1.Qh5+ > ± (1.38) depth: 7/24 00:00:00 31kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Bf6 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Bxf8 Bxe5 5.Qh5+ Kg8 > +- (1.41) depth: 8/19 00:00:00 60kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Bf6 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Bxf8 Bxe5 5.Qh5+ Kg8 6.dxe5 Qxf8 > +- (1.41) depth: 9/23 00:00:01 140kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qh5 Be8 6.Qh3 Bg6 > +- (1.41) depth: 10/23 00:00:03 341kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qf3 Qg6 6.Qh3 Kg8 7.f4 > ± (1.16) depth: 11/27 00:00:09 1053kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qf3 Qg6 6.Qh3 Kg8 > ± (1.16) depth: 12/33 00:00:33 3846kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qf3 Qh7 6.Be3 > ± (1.10) depth: 13/36 00:03:49 25279kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ > ± (1.10) depth: 14/36 00:08:29 57986kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ > ± (1.07) depth: 15/39 00:23:03 161173kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ > ± (1.04) depth: 16/43 01:22:05 574067kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ > ± (0.97) depth: 17/45 03:41:49 1573278kN >1.Qh5+ Kg8 2.Bh6 Rf7 3.Qg6+ Kh8 4.Qxf7 Qg8 5.Qxg8+ > ± (0.97) depth: 18/49 12:38:51 5448205kN No Fritz does not believe that Qh5+ is a good move. 1.41/10 1.16/11 1.16/12 1.10/13 1.10/14 1.07/15 1.04/16 0.97/17 0.97/18 You see that the score is always goes down. 0.97 does not mean winning and is often a draw. I doubt if Qh5+ is winning. 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.