Author: Steffen Basting
Date: 12:13:55 03/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2003 at 13:44:06, Mike S. wrote: >On March 13, 2003 at 11:05:35, Steffen Basting wrote: > >>Hi! >>I just played some games against Faile 1.4.4 and came up to the following >>position: >> >>[D] r1b1r1k1/1pp1qppN/2n2n1p/p3p3/3P4/2PB4/P5PP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 17 >>(...) >>So, is your program able to find a defense (which means a negative score for >>white ;-) after Rxf6? > >Nimzo 8 quickly avoids 1...gxf6. The score after 1...e4 rises up to -0.73 from >White's viewpoint, and then Nimzo switches to 1...exd4: > >Analysis by Nimzo 8: > >1...a4 > +- (1.88) Depth: 1/11 00:00:00 >1...e4 > ± (1.32) Depth: 1/11 00:00:00 > ± (1.32) Depth: 1/11 00:00:00 >1...exd4 > ² (0.27) Depth: 1/11 00:00:00 > ² (0.27) Depth: 1/11 00:00:00 >1...gxf6 2.Bxh6 Rd8 3.Qf3 f5 4.Bg5 Qe8 > -+ (-5.05) Depth: 1/11 00:00:00 > -+ (-2.24) Depth: 6/19 00:00:00 152kN >1...e4 2.Bc4 gxf6 3.Qh5 Ne5 4.dxe5 fxe5 5.Qg6+ Kh8 6.Qxe4 f5 > -+ (-2.25) Depth: 6/19 00:00:01 152kN > µ (-0.72) Depth: 8/22 00:00:06 2580kN >1...exd4 2.Bxh6 gxh6 3.Rf2 Kg7 4.Nf6 Rd8 5.Qf3 Ne5 6.Qg3+ Ng6 > µ (-0.73) Depth: 8/22 00:00:08 3693kN > µ (-0.97) Depth: 11/26 00:04:49 143874kN Hi! Thanks for your reply :-) I had a look at this variation and Fritz says the following: r1b1r1k1/1pp1qppN/2n2R1p/p7/3p4/2PB4/P5PP/R1BQ2K1 w - - 0 1 Analysis by Fritz 8: 18.Tf4 f5 19.cxd4 Kxh7 20.Dh5 Td8 21.Lxf5+ Lxf5 22.Dxf5+ Kh8 23.Te4 Df6 24.Dxf6 gxf6 ³ (-0.59) Tiefe: 9/14 00:00:00 18.Tf4 f5 19.cxd4 Kxh7 20.Dh5 Td8 21.Lxf5+ Lxf5 22.Dxf5+ Kh8 23.Te4 Df6 24.Dxf6 gxf6 ³ (-0.59) Tiefe: 9/14 00:00:00 18.Tf4 f5 19.cxd4 Kxh7 20.Dh5 Td8 21.Lxf5+ Lxf5 22.Dxf5+ Kh8 23.Te4 Df6 24.Dxf6 gxf6 ³ (-0.59) Tiefe: 9/14 00:00:00 18.Tf4-- µ (-0.87) Tiefe: 10/27 00:00:01 1234kN 18.Tf4 dxc3 19.Dh5 µ (-0.87) Tiefe: 10/30 00:00:02 2596kN 18.Lxh6! µ (-0.84) Tiefe: 10/34 00:00:05 6216kN 18.Lxh6! ³ (-0.69) Tiefe: 10/34 00:00:06 7163kN 18.Lxh6 gxh6 19.cxd4 Sxd4 20.Dh5 De3+ 21.Tf2 Kh8 22.Sf6 Td8 23.Le2 ³ (-0.56) Tiefe: 10/34 00:00:07 8855kN 18.Lxh6 gxh6 19.cxd4 Kh8 20.Kh1 Sxd4 21.Txh6 Kg7 22.Tf6 De3 23.Tc1 ³ (-0.50) Tiefe: 11/30 00:00:16 18638kN 18.Lxh6 gxh6 19.cxd4 Kh8 20.Kh1 Sxd4 21.Txh6 Kg7 ³ (-0.37) Tiefe: 12/35 00:00:47 54341kN 18.Lxh6! = (-0.09) Tiefe: 13/36 00:02:42 186968kN 18.Lxh6 gxh6 19.Dh5 Se5 20.Taf1 dxc3 21.Sg5 Sxd3 22.Tg6+ fxg6 = (0.00) Tiefe: 13/37 00:03:46 259287kN 18.Lxh6! ² (0.28) Tiefe: 14/42 00:10:42 732073kN 18.Lxh6! ² (0.56) Tiefe: 14/46 00:16:19 1107333kN 18.Lxh6 gxh6 19.Dh5 Se5 20.Taf1 dxc3 21.Txf7 Sxf7 22.Dg6+ Kh8 23.Sf6 Sg5 24.Dxh6+ ² (0.56) Tiefe: 15/43 00:27:53 1919613kN 18.Lxh6 gxh6 19.Dh5 Se5 20.Taf1 Lg4 21.Dxh6 Sxd3 22.Sg5 De3+ 23.Kh1 Sf2+ ± (0.75) Tiefe: 16/47 01:04:17 4460038kN So I think this variation will give white a certain advantage though I don't know how it compares with Nxf6. My feeling just told me that Rxf6 is "better" but it seems to be impossible to prove ;-)
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.