Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 16:50:01 07/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2003 at 19:20:32, Brian Kostick wrote:
>On July 18, 2003 at 09:09:49, Anson T J wrote:
>
>>On July 18, 2003 at 03:10:04, m.d.hurd wrote:
>>
>>>On July 17, 2003 at 18:52:33, Anson T J wrote:
>>>
>>>>[d]1k1r2r1/pp1P1p2/2p3pp/8/5q2/1NBQ4/PP6/K2R4 b - - 0 1
>>>>Current game, Junior 8 - Hiarcs 8
>>>>
>>>>Junior 8 just played d7 (2.61/17) after 2:15 Hiarcs 8 is thinking ...b6 with
>>>>-0.30 (good for black).
>>>>
>>>>As my computer is tied up in the match, I'm curious to know how the other
>>>>engines evaluate this position.
>>>>
>>>>Thx
>>>>
>>>>http://mysite.freeserve.com/intagrand/junior8/index.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>This is very unbalanced position which shows up in the different scores of
>>>Shredder and Junior.
>>>
>>>
>>>New game
>>>1k1r2r1/pp1P1p2/2p3pp/8/5q2/1NBQ4/PP6/K2R4 b - - 0 1
>>>
>>>Analysis by Junior 8:
>>>
>>>1...h5 2.Nc5 h4 3.Re1 Ka8 4.Be5 Qf2 5.Rc1 Qg2 6.Qd6 h3 7.Re1 f5
>>>+- (2.30) Depth: 19 00:08:23 673867kN
>>>(18.07.2003)
>>>
>>>Analysis by Shredder 7.04:
>>>
>>>1...b6 2.Nd2 f6 3.Ne4 f5 4.Nf6 Rgf8 5.Kb1 Rf7 6.Rg1 g5 7.Re1 Kb7 8.Rf1
>>>² (0.50) Depth: 16/36 00:04:51 104896kN
>>>(18.07.2003)
>>>
>>>Does Shredder have more knowledge of the 3 connected passed pawns I wonder ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>>Heres how Junior 8 played out the game. It seems that it was correct with its +2
>>score for white and seems that the position above was a win for white. Not many
>>engines see the position above as a great one for white.
>>
>>[Event "Junior 8 Test"]
>>[Site "London"]
>>[Date "2003.07.17"]
>>[Round "14.1"]
>>[White "Junior 8"]
>>[Black "Hiarcs 8"]
>>[Result "1-0"]
>>[ECO "B19"]
>>[PlyCount "89"]
>>
>>1. d4 {0} c6 {0} 2. e4 {0} d5 {0} 3. Nd2 {0} dxe4 {0} 4. Nxe4 {0} Bf5 {0} 5. Ng3
>>{0} Bg6 {0} 6. h4 {0} h6 {0} 7. Nf3 {0} Nd7 {0} 8. h5 {0} Bh7 {0} 9. Bd3 {0}
>>Bxd3 {0} 10. Qxd3 {0} Qc7 {0} 11. Bd2 {0} e6 {0} 12. O-O-O {0} O-O-O {0} 13. Ne4
>>{0} Ngf6 {0.13/13 7:54} 14. g3 {0} Nc5 {0} 15. Nxc5 {0} Bxc5 {0} 16. c4 {0} Ng4
>>{0} 17. Qe2 {0.45/17 4:43} Be7 {0} 18. Bc3 {0.50/18 10:19} Kb8 {(Qb6) 0.31/12
>>6:28} 19. Nd2 {(Kb1) 0.59/18 5:02} Nf6 {0.23/13 4:21} 20. Nb3 {(Kb1) 0.67/20 0}
>>Bd6 {(Rhg8) 0.19/13 7:14} 21. Rhe1 {0.77/20 13:45} Rhe8 {(Rhg8) 0.24/14 0} 22.
>>f4 {(Kb1) 0.84/19 3:10} Rg8 {(Qe7) 0.23/13 4:57} 23. Kb1 {0.87/19 8:43} Qc8
>>{(Qe7) 0.46/13 53} 24. Ka1 {(Nc5) 0.93/18 4:43} g6 {(Ka8) 0.16/13 3:17} 25. d5
>>{(hxg6) 1.89/16 2:16} Nxh5 {0.32/13 3:59} 26. c5 {1.92/17 51} Nxg3 {0.13/13
>>2:24} 27. Qf3 {(Qf2) 1.93/18 3:01} exd5 {0.15/14 5:37} 28. cxd6 {(Qxg3) 1.99/20
>>0} Ne4 {(Nf5) 0.2/14 8:25} 29. Rxe4 {2.69/18 20:49} dxe4 {-0.05/15 0} 30. Qxe4
>>{2.61/17 6:57} Qg4 {(Qe6) -0.05/14 0} 31. Qd3 {(Qd4) 2.61/17 2:28} Qxf4 {(Qf5)
>>0.25/13 20:03} 32. d7 {(Nc5) 2.61/17 2:15}
>>
>>[d]1k1r2r1/pp1P1p2/2p3pp/8/5q2/1NBQ4/PP6/K2R4 b - - 0 1
>>
>>b6 {(h5) -0.30/13 8:20} 33. Be1 {(Nc1) 2.49/17 5:55} Kb7 {(Qf6) -0.57/13 7:10}
>>34. Bg3 {(Nd2) 2.36/19 6:25} Qb4 {(Qf6) -0.74/12 5:22} 35. Nd2 {(Qe2) 2.34/17
>>3:23} f5 {0.58/13 13:45} 36. Nc4 {3.09/19 0} Rg7 {0.84/12 5:56} 37. a3 {2.95/16
>>2:29} Qc5 {1.95/13 1:30} 38. b4 {3.25/16 7} Qd5 {1.95/12 33} 39. Qb3 {3.85/17
>>3:00} Qg2 {1.70/12 0} 40. Na5+ {4.15/17 5:43} Ka8 {2.69/14 0} 41. Be5 {4.63/17
>>4:38} Rf7 {4.39/13 21:50} 42. b5 {5.89/20 0} Qe2 {4.68/12 6:58} 43. Nxc6
>>{7.58/16 44} Qxd1+ {9.45/13 15:26} 44. Qxd1 {14.06/21 0} Rfxd7 {9.45/13 1:02}
>>45. Qb3 {adjud. 14.06/21 1:19} 1-0
>
>
>Some engines seem to refute Junior 8's optimism. I am not so sure it's a great
>position for White? BK
>
>[Event ", Blitz:5'"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "2003.07.18"]
>[Round "1"]
>[White "Junior 8"]
>[Black "Crafty 19.03 cb"]
>[Result "0-1"]
>[Annotator "3.00;0.08"]
>[SetUp "1"]
>[FEN "1k1r2r1/pp1P1p2/2p3pp/8/5q2/1NBQ4/PP6/K2R4 b - - 0 1"]
>[PlyCount "47"]
>
>[Event ", Blitz:5'"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "2003.07.18"]
>[Round "1"]
>[White "Junior 8"]
>[Black "Ruffian 1.0.1"]
>[Result "0-1"]
>[Annotator "3.00;0.09"]
>[SetUp "1"]
>[FEN "1k1r2r1/pp1P1p2/2p3pp/8/5q2/1NBQ4/PP6/K2R4 b - - 0 1"]
>[PlyCount "37"]
>
>[Event ", Blitz:5'"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "2003.07.18"]
>[Round "1"]
>[White "Junior 8"]
>[Black "Shredder 7.04 cb"]
>[Result "0-1"]
>[Annotator "3.00;0.39"]
>[SetUp "1"]
>[FEN "1k1r2r1/pp1P1p2/2p3pp/8/5q2/1NBQ4/PP6/K2R4 b - - 0 1"]
>[PlyCount "47"]
>
>[Event ", Blitz:5'"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "2003.07.18"]
>[Round "1"]
>[White "Junior 8"]
>[Black "The King 3.23 wb2uci"]
>[Result "0-1"]
>[Annotator "3.00;0.08"]
>[SetUp "1"]
>[FEN "1k1r2r1/pp1P1p2/2p3pp/8/5q2/1NBQ4/PP6/K2R4 b - - 0 1"]
>[PlyCount "53"]
>
I don't know if this position is good for white and i don't know if
by these 4 games, you would like to prove that Junior's evaluation
was optimistic, but i know that a 5 minute game doesn't prove absolutely
anything about one position, and even 100, 5' games doesn't prove anything.
The only way to see who is better in a position is to let an engine analyse it
for 1-2 days(or less) or play 20-25 games with long time controls (>1.5
min/move) between some top engines.
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.