Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 00:11:13 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 02:13:32, Uri Blass wrote:
>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
-----------------
Hi Uri,
This move certainly has equal chances if not a slight plus for White due to the
passed pawns on the kingside!
I would take White over the Black side any time!
Regards,
Terry
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.