Author: John Merlino
Date: 14:52:57 09/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2002 at 15:18:22, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote:
>On September 29, 2002 at 14:49:10, John Merlino wrote:
>
>>Here is the PGN and CM9000's output from Game three. It was a brutal game with
>>the pendulum swinging back and forth many times. Larry thought he had a win
>>until he played 58...f2+. Instead, 58...Rf4 almost certainly would have at least
>>drawn. Unfortunately, he took so much time on calculating the initial sacrifice
>>of 53...Rg3 that he said that he didn't have enough time to accurately calculate
>>the follow-ups.
>>
>>Either way, an incredible game. Enjoy!
>>
>
>Thanks for the broadcast (as allways).
>
>>[Event ""]
>>[Site ""]
>>[Date "2002.9.29"]
>>[Round ""]
>>[White "Botvinnik 64"]
>>[Black "Christiansen"]
>>[TimeControl "120+120"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>
>>1.c4 {00:00 (Book)} 1...e5 {00:41} 2.Nc3 {00:00 (Book)} 2...Nf6 {00:57}
>>3.Nf3 {00:00 (Book)} 3...Nc6 {01:06} 4.d4 {00:00 (Book)} 4...exd4 {01:22
>>} 5.Nxd4 {00:00 (Book)} 5...Bb4 {01:35} 6.Bg5 {00:00 (Book)} 6...h6 {
>>02:54} 7.Bh4 {00:00 (Book)} 7...Bxc3+ {03:56} 8.bxc3 {00:00 (Book)}
>>8...Ne5 {04:09} 9.e3 {00:00 (Book)} 9...d6 {08:29} 10.Be2 {02:10 {Score:
>>-0.11, Depth: 3/12)} 10...Ng6 {10:04} 11.Bxf6 {02:59 (Score: -0.20,
>>Depth: 4/13)} 11...Qxf6 {10:17} 12.O-O {06:21 (Score: -0.15, Depth:
>>3/12)} 12...O-O {11:33} 13.Qc2 {06:54 (Score: -0.27, Depth: 2/11)}
>>13...Re8 {11:50} 14.Rfd1 {09:03 (Score: -0.28, Depth: 2/11)} 14...Nf8 {
>>15:24} 15.Bd3 {10:36 (Score: -0.08, Depth: 2/11)} 15...Ne6 {17:47}
>>16.Nb3 {12:26 (Score: -0.16, Depth: 2/11)} 16...Rb8 {21:13} 17.a4 {14:45
>>(Score: -0.16, Depth: 2/11)} 17...Qe7 {23:01} 18.a5 {16:38 (Score:
>>-0.16, Depth: 3/12)} 18...Bd7 {24:12} 19.a6 {17:54 (Score: 0.02, Depth:
>>3/12)} 19...b6 {24:30} 20.Nd4 {20:06 (Score: -0.12, Depth: 3/12)}
>>20...Nc5 {33:45} 21.Nb5 {22:36 (Score: -0.23, Depth: 3/12)} 21...Bxb5 {
>>33:59} 22.cxb5 {24:16 (Score: 0.15, Depth: 4/13)} 22...Qf6 {34:55}
>>23.Bc4 {26:45 (Score: 0.34, Depth: 4/13)} 23...Re5 {37:33} 24.Bd5 {26:45
>>(Score: 0.38, Depth: 3/12)} 24...Rbe8 {38:15} 25.Rd4 {29:17 (Score:
>>0.38, Depth: 3/12)} 25...Ne6 {41:38} 26.Rd2 {31:58 (Score: 0.37, Depth:
>>4/13)} 26...g6 {42:41} 27.Ra4 {34:29 (Score: 0.73, Depth: 3/12)}
>>27...Kg7 {44:09} 28.Rd1 {36:49 (Score: 0.78, Depth: 3/12)} 28...Re7 {
>>45:18} 29.Rb4 {39:17 (Score: 0.69, Depth: 3/12)} 29...g5 {51:12} 30.Bc6
>>{41:47 (Score: 0.82, Depth: 3/12)} 30...Qg6 {52:36} 31.Qb2 {43:34
>>(Score: 0.76, Depth: 3/12)} 31...f5 {54:07} 32.Qb1 {44:05 (Score: 0.48,
>>Depth: 2/11)} 32...Qf6 {55:25} 33.Bd5 {46:38 (Score: 0.57, Depth: 3/12)}
>>33...f4 {57:38} 34.e4 {46:53 (Score: 0.16, Depth: 3/12)} 34...Nf8 {
>>01:00:44} 35.f3 {49:23 (Score: 0.79, Depth: 3/12)} 35...h5 {01:01:02}
>>36.Qc2 {52:49 (Score: 0.47, Depth: 3/12)} 36...Ng6 {01:01:29} 37.Qa2 {
>>56:01 (Score: 0.28, Depth: 3/12)} 37...Kh6 {01:02:23} 38.Qd2 {57:58
>>(Score: 0.44, Depth: 2/11)} 38...Rg7 {01:03:42} 39.Qd4 {58:12 (Score:
>>0.26, Depth: 3/12)} 39...g4 {01:04:20} 40.fxg4 {01:01:39 (Score: -0.08,
>>Depth: 3/12)} 40...Nh4 {01:05:18} 41.Rb2 {01:03:19 (Score: 0.28, Depth:
>>2/11)} 41...Rxg4 {01:14:53} 42.Kh1 {01:05:08 (Score: 0.37, Depth: 3/12)}
>>42...Ng6 {01:16:12} 43.Rf2 {01:07:41 (Score: 0.69, Depth: 3/12)}
>>43...Qe7 {01:17:53} 44.Qd2 {01:10:07 (Score: 0.64, Depth: 3/12)}
>>44...Reg5 {01:20:20} 45.Ra1 {01:10:19 (Score: 0.57, Depth: 3/12)}
>>45...h4 {01:23:21} 46.c4 {01:10:19 (Score: 0.36, Depth: 3/12)} 46...Qe5
>>{01:26:50} 47.Rc1 {01:12:41 (Score: 0.47, Depth: 3/12)} 47...Kg7 {
>>01:27:24} 48.Bc6 {01:15:13 (Score: 0.46, Depth: 3/12)} 48...Qe7 {
>>01:31:23} 49.Rcf1 {01:17:50 (Score: 0.57, Depth: 3/12)} 49...Re5 {
>>01:34:16} 50.Qc3 {01:20:20 (Score: 0.84, Depth: 3/12)} 50...Kh6 {
>>01:35:37} 51.Bd5 {01:22:04 (Score: 0.69, Depth: 2/11)} 51...Reg5 {
>>01:40:19} 52.Qb3 {01:22:20 (Score: 0.63, Depth: 3/12)} 52...Qe5 {
>>01:41:57} 53.Rd1 {01:24:01 (Score: 0.50, Depth: 2/11)} 53...Rg3 {
>>01:51:07} 54.hxg3 {01:26:20 (Score: 0.05, Depth: 4/13)} 54...hxg3 {
>>01:51:19} 55.Ra2 {01:31:24 (Score: -0.40, Depth: 5/13)} 55...Rg4 {
>>01:53:47} 56.Kg1 {01:32:54 (Score: -0.28, Depth: 4/12)} 56...Qh5 {
>>01:54:13} 57.Kf1 {01:35:08 (Score: -0.35, Depth: 4/12)} 57...f3 {
>>01:55:06} 58.Ke1 {01:36:54 (Score: -0.24, Depth: 4/12)}
>[d]8/p1p5/Pp1p2nk/1P1B3q/2P1P1r1/1Q3pp1/R5P1/3RK3 b - -
>Well, I don't see a win here.
>Somebody with faster brain (or hardware) that could point it out.
>58...Rf4 59.Kd2 fxg2 (59...f2 60.Raa1) 60.Qxg3
>All I get out of it is a drawn endgame.
>(My analysis PC is busy playing DVD in the livingroom so try you PC too.)
>But 57...Qh1+ etc. (the Polgar line) look like winning.
>
>Odd Gunnar
We let the P4 2.66GHz machine run over the break on this position
(unfortunately, it's not connected to our network right now for safety reasons,
so I don't have the output), but after 2 hours and 20 minutes it sees:
58...Rf4 59.Kh2 Qh2 60.e5 fxg2 61.Bxg2 Qxg2+ 62.Kc1 Rf2 63.Qe3+ Kh7 64.Rxf2 gxf2
etc...
and a score of -0.48.
So, maybe it wasn't a clear win. I will let it run on Polgar's position
overnight after the match.
jm
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.