Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 16:20:46 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 18:12:54, Laurence Chen wrote: >On December 10, 2002 at 17:50:41, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 >I believe that the person who was making the posts about Space advantage failed >to understand that chess is 95% tactics and any temporary positional advantages, >such as Space, will disappear if not converted into more permanent positional >advantage. Maybe what is needed is for someone to make up a position which contains one of those "more permanent positional advantages." What would such a position look like???????? What are the "more permanent positional advantages," anyway? The question would then be whether or not the engines correctly evaluated such "more permanent positional advantages." Bob D. > >Laurence
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.