Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:50:41 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 17:43:35, Ingo Lindam wrote: >On December 10, 2002 at 17:04:07, Uri Blass wrote: > >>Yace only material with the following values claims that it is tactics. >>pawn=0.8 >>knigh=3.4 >>bishop=3.5 >>rook=5 >>queen=10.01 >> >>New position >>[D]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/3P4/2PNPP2/P1NBB2P/1P3QP1/3R1RK1 w kq - 0 1 >> >>Analysis by yace_mo: >> >>1.d6 exd6 >> µ (-0.80) Depth: 1 00:00:05 >>1.f5 >> = (0.00) Depth: 1 00:00:05 >>1.f5 Nh6 >> = (0.00) Depth: 2 00:00:05 >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 >> = (0.00) Depth: 3 00:00:05 >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 a5 >> = (0.00) Depth: 4 00:00:05 >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 a5 3.Ndb5 >> = (0.00) Depth: 5 00:00:05 4kN >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 a5 3.Ndb5 b6 >> = (0.00) Depth: 6 00:00:05 13kN >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 a5 3.Ndb5 b6 4.Bf2 >> = (0.00) Depth: 7 00:00:06 37kN >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 a5 3.Ndb5 b6 4.Bf2 g6 >> = (0.00) Depth: 8 00:00:06 132kN >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 a5 3.Ndb5 b6 4.Bf2 g6 5.fxg6 >> = (0.00) Depth: 9 00:00:06 438kN >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 a5 3.Ndb5 b6 4.Bf2 g6 5.fxg6 hxg6 >> = (0.00) Depth: 10 00:00:07 934kN >>1.f5 Nh6 2.Qd2 a5 3.Ndb5 b6 4.Bf2 g6 5.fxg6 hxg6 6.Be2 d6 >> = (0.00) Depth: 11 00:00:11 3609kN >>1.f5 d6 2.Be2 Nf6 3.e5 dxe5 4.Ne6 fxe6 5.dxe6 Nbd7 6.exd7+ Bxd7 7.Bxa7 Kf7 >> = (0.00) Depth: 12 00:00:57 28599kN >>1.e5 b6 2.e6 fxe6 3.dxe6 dxe6 4.Nf3 Nd7 5.Qg3 Nh6 6.Bg6+ hxg6 7.Qxg6+ Nf7 8.Ng5 >>Nde5 9.Rxd8+ Kxd8 >> = (0.01) Depth: 12 00:02:14 71742kN >>1.e5 b6 2.e6 Nh6 3.exf7+ Nxf7 4.Qc2 g6 5.Qa4 Bb7 6.Ne6 Qc8 7.Nxf8 >> = (0.10) Depth: 12 00:02:54 94557kN >>1.e5 b6 2.e6 Nh6 3.f5 Bb7 4.Bxh6 gxh6 5.exf7+ Kxf7 6.Ne6 Qc8 7.f6 dxe6 8.fxe7+ >>Ke8 9.exf8Q+ Kd7 >> ² (0.50) Depth: 13 00:05:46 193739kN >>1.e5 b6 2.e6 Nh6 3.f5 c5 4.dxc6 dxc6 5.exf7+ >> ± (0.80) Depth: 13 00:09:33 324089kN >> >>(blass, tel-aviv 11.12.2002) >> >>Uri > >It shouldn't be surprising that a position offering a positional advantage >contains also tactical possibilities... and also a tactical proof of the >advantage if one is just able to look deep enough into the position/searchtree >to find that proof, should it? > >I guess it doesn't surprise you, Uri. > >Internette Gruesse, >Ingo Of course it does not surprise me I expected this and I did the analysis to contradict the claim that the position has no tactics Yace kept the advantage also ar depth 14 1.e5 c6 2.dxc6 bxc6 3.Be4 Bb7 4.Ndb5 f5 5.exf6 Nxf6 6.Bf3 g6 7.Nxa7 d5 8.cxd5 cxd5 ± (0.80) Depth: 14 00:25:12 865117kN I guess that longer analysis can prove that white wins more material. 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.