Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 15:59:49 10/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2002 at 18:55:23, G. R. Morton wrote: >On October 15, 2002 at 16:09:58, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 15, 2002 at 15:51:19, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>[d]2r5/6kp/Rp6/3n4/8/1p4P1/5P2/4R1K1 b - - 0 35 >>> >>>Not an easy win for sure...Fritz could not beat Fritz at 1 min a move. Is there >>>a win with best play?? >>> >>> >>>Fritz 7 - Deep Fritz 7 >>>P4-2530MHZ-1GB, 40'/40+40'/40+40' P4-2530MHZ-1GB (1), 15.10.2002 >>> >>>35...b2 Both last book move -2.91/13 13 36.Ra7+ -3.16/16 1:36 Kg6 >>>-2.94/14 18 37.Rd7 -3.09/16 1:16 Rc1 -3.00/14 15 38.Rd6+ -3.19/18 1:48 >>> Nf6 -3.03/16 15 39.Rdd1 -3.19/17 50 b1Q -3.13/15 19 40.Rxc1 -3.19/14 >>>12 Qf5 -2.84/15 1:45 41.Rc4 (Rc6) -3.22/14 1:07 41...Qd5 -3.13/14 1:05 >>>42.Rb4 -3.25/14 1:04 Qc5 -3.25/15 1:28 43.Reb1 -3.28/15 48 Nd5 >>>-3.25/16 1:23 44.Rb5 -3.44/14 44 Qc4 -3.38/16 2:10 45.R1b2 -3.44/14 >>>1:20 Kf5 -3.47/15 1:32 46.Rb1 (Kh2) -3.53/14 1:03 46...h5 -3.44/15 1:27 >>> 47.R1b3 -3.59/14 1:11 Kg4 -3.56/15 1:19 48.Kh2 -3.72/15 1:09 h4 (Qd4) >>>-3.59/14 56 49.gxh4 -3.75/14 53 Qd4 -3.59/14 1:37 50.Rg3+ -3.66/14 51 >>>Kxh4 -3.63/15 1:19 51.Rh3+ (Rf3) -3.81/14 45 51...Kg4 -3.72/14 39 >>>52.Rg3+ -4.00/14 2:25 Kf4 (Kf5) -3.69/14 40 53.Kg2 -3.91/14 57 Ke4 >>>-3.72/13 51 54.Kg1 -4.09/13 53 Qd2 (Qd1+) -4.13/13 1:23 55.Rb1 -4.28/13 >>> 1:01 b5 -4.22/13 1:32 56.Rg2 -4.41/14 1:20 Kd4 -4.38/13 50 57.Rxb5 >>>-3.12/13 57 Nf4 -4.22/12 20 58.Kh2 -2.97/13 40 Qe1 (Nd3) -2.94/11 20 >>>59.Rb8 -2.94/13 39 Kd5 (Kd3) -2.75/12 48 60.Rd8+ -2.75/13 1:22 Kc5 >>>(Kc6) -2.09/13 1:09 61.Rf8 0.00/14 42 Ne6 0.00/14 48 62.Rf5+ 0.00/14 >>>23 Kb4 0.00/15 47 63.Rg4+ 0.00/14 24 Kb3 0.00/15 57 64.Rf3+ 0.00/14 >>>36 Ka2 0.00/16 1:20 65.Re3 0.00/15 53 Qd1 Draw accepted 0.00/15 49 ½-½ >> >>I do not know. >>The only clear thing is that he resigned too early. >> >>I admit that I also did not understand the decision of kramnik to resign >>but I thought that he probably knows more than me about endgames and prefered to >>use computer time to test pondering with movei and not to analyze the positions >>in that way. >> >>This only proves that the claim of Vincent Diepveen that queen is better than 2 >>rooks is clearly wrong. >> >>You can see that even Queen and knight have problem to beat 2 rooks inspite of >>the fact that black has a passed pawn. >> >>Uri > >Interesting that you should say that. Hans Berliner would nearly support you. In >his book 'The System' he claims the following relative values: > >Queen = 8.8 >Rook = 5.1 >Bishop = 3.33 >Knight = 3.2 >Pawn =1. > >Which would make, however, a Q + Kt = 12 > 2R = 10.2. Does this seem right? > >GM It is a known fact among chessplayers that Knight and Queen can make a great pair for attacking. So as usual it probably boiles down to how the rest of pieces on the board are placed. Torstein
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.