Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:53:27 02/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2004 at 05:40:12, Amir Ban wrote:
>On February 01, 2004 at 22:39:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>
>>Round 8. White vs Junior. Obviously this would be a bear of an opponent, and
>>the game did not disappoint. Crafty worked up an edge after leaving the book at
>>+.17 (nearly equal) to +.6 by move 16 (book ended at move 7 as Junior chose to
>>not repeat the previously tried responses to d4 others played, and apparently
>>listened to a comment by IM Schroer to play something different. Junior let
>>things get a bit wild, and starting around move 20 we were hitting 16 plies
>>every time and our score was up to +1.0 with some wild tactics. We ended up
>>winning a piece for three pawns and then a very sharp tactical struggle followed
>>where either side might have won. A well-deserved by both players result of
>>draw was reached (perpetual by Junior) at move 64.
>>
>
>Concur and add:
>
>The book was Boris Alterman's Graz book. I did no book preparations or
>modifications.
>
>After white's f4 Junior thought it had an advantage, with a b5, b4 plan. b5
>would temporarily get the black queen stuck, but I was unconcerned as this
>Junior is pretty immune from queen trouble. However b4 got a fail low, and it
>switched to the senseless Kh8. This signaled to me that we were getting
>outsearched.
>
>After white's Qb4 I think not exchanging queens was correct. With the queens off
>black's b5 falls and it looks gloomy.
here's crafty's output for the above:
16 18.83 0.54 28. Qb4 Qxb4 29. axb4 Ra8 30. Bxb5
Ra3 31. Bf1 Rb3 32. b5 Ng4 33. e4 dxe4
34. Rc7 Kg8 35. Re7 Kf8 36. Bc4 Kxe7
37. Bxb3
16-> 36.88 0.54 28. Qb4 Qxb4 29. axb4 Ra8 30. Bxb5
Ra3 31. Bf1 Rb3 32. b5 Ng4 33. e4 dxe4
34. Rc7 Kg8 35. Re7 Kf8 36. Bc4 Kxe7
37. Bxb3
Black(27): time 180900
time remaining: 30:09 (crafty).
Black(27): otim 196500
time remaining: 32:45 (opponent).
Black(27): Qa4
predicted move made.
17 55.34 0.44 28. Qb4 Qxb4 29. axb4 Ra8 30. h3 g6
31. Bxb5 Rb8 32. Bd3 Rxb4 33. Rc7 Kg7
34. Kf2 Ne4+ 35. Kf3 Nd2+ 36. Ke2 Rb2
37. g3 Kf6 <HT>
time=2:03 cpu=396% mat=0 n=1073297211 fh=90% nps=8.70M
after Rb8 rather than Qxb4:
15 17.31 0.61 29. h3 Ne4 30. Bxe4 dxe4 31. Qd6 Ra8
32. Rc3 Qd1+ 33. Kh2 Qa1 34. Rb3 Kg8
35. Qe7 Qc1 36. Qc5 Qxc5 37. dxc5 Rb8
(s=4)
15-> 31.28 0.61 29. h3 Ne4 30. Bxe4 dxe4 31. Qd6 Ra8
32. Rc3 Qd1+ 33. Kh2 Qa1 34. Rb3 Kg8
35. Qe7 Qc1 36. Qc5 Qxc5 37. dxc5 Rb8
(s=5)
16 48.68 0.61 29. h3 Ne4 30. Bxe4 dxe4 31. Qd6 Ra8
32. Rc3 Qd1+ 33. Kh2 Qa1 34. Rb3 Kg8
35. Qc5 g6 36. Qxb5 Rxa3 37. Rxa3 Qxa3
38. Qe2 (s=4)
time=1:01 cpu=393% mat=0 n=531314977 fh=91% nps=8.57M
>
>After Qh4 g3 it looked bad for black. Junior can see what the passed a-pawn can
>do, and its evaluation fell below crafty's. The desperation play worked. Junior
>never took the 3rd pawn for the knight: no time for that.
I think you are right there. The difference in score from my perspective
looked like this:
Where we expected Qxf4:
14-> 15.45 1.13 41. Ke1 Qxf4 42. a5 g5 43. a6 g4 44.
Be2 Kg7 45. Ra3 Ra8 46. Qc3 h5 47.
Qe3 Qxe3 48. Rxe3
15 47.73 1.22 41. Ke1 Qxf4 42. a5 g5 43. a6 g4 44.
Be2 h5 45. a7 Ra8 46. Qb6 Kg7 47. Qb7
Rf8 48. Rb4 Qd6
15-> 48.97 1.22 41. Ke1 Qxf4 42. a5 g5 43. a6 g4 44.
Be2 h5 45. a7 Ra8 46. Qb6 Kg7 47. Qb7
Rf8 48. Rb4 Qd6
time=55.54 cpu=395% mat=1 n=422012339 fh=92% nps=7.60M
and after you refused taking on f4:
13-> 5.69 1.79 42. Bf1 Qh1 43. Qc2 Ra8 44. Rg3 Rb8
45. Kf2 Qh2+ 46. Bg2 Qh4 47. Kf3 Qf6
48. Ke3 Rb4
14 29.51 1.74 42. Bf1 Qh2 43. Qc1 Ra8 44. Rb4 h5
45. Qe3 h4 46. Qf2 Qh1 47. Kd2 g6 48.
Bd3 h3 49. Rb1 Qg2 <HT>
14-> 35.38 1.74 42. Bf1 Qh2 43. Qc1 Ra8 44. Rb4 h5
45. Qe3 h4 46. Qf2 Qh1 47. Kd2 g6 48.
Bd3 h3 49. Rb1 Qg2 <HT>
15 51.32 1.74 42. Bf1 Qh2 43. Qc1 Ra8 44. Rb4 h5
45. Qe3 h4 46. Qf2 Qh1 47. Ke2 <HT>
time=55.07 cpu=392% mat=1 n=427428305 fh=91% nps=7.76M
So we thought it was a mistake. But in reality it might have been better
judgement by Junior here...
>
>According to Junior, Crafty may have thrown the game with Qc1. It was much
>calmer after that.
Here is what I had at that point:
> 14 16.38 1.73 43. Qc1 Qh4+ 44. Ke2 Qh2+ 45. Kd3 Ra8
46. Rb4 Qg1 47. Qe1 Rc8 48. Kd2 Qh2+
49. Ke3 Qg1+ 50. Ke2 Rc4 51. Rxc4 dxc4
52. Qc3
And after your 44. ... Qh2+
14-> 3.16 1.73 45. Ke1 Qh4+ <HT>
15 6.82 -- 45. Ke1
15 40.08 0.67 45. Ke1 Qh4+ 46. Kd1 Qh1 47. Kd2 Qe4
48. Qc3 Qxf4+ 49. Ke1 e5 50. dxe5 Re8
51. Rb4 Rxe5+ 52. Be2 Re4 53. Rxe4
dxe4 54. a5
15 5:00 1.53 45. Kf3 Qg1 46. a5 f6 47. Rb1 e5 48.
Qe3 Qh2 49. Bg2 g5 50. f5 e4+ 51. Kf2
Qf4+ 52. Qxf4 gxf4 53. a6 Kf7
time=5:00 cpu=396% mat=1 n=2360679641 fh=90% nps=7.85M
So things were dropping thru this point. Maybe you picked up that Ke1 was not
going to work, where it took Crafty to depth=15 to see it looked more drawish.
>In the end, after e5, it was getting really dangerous for white. But anything
>but a draw would be injustice.
>
>Congratulations, and see you at the NPS challenge.
>
>Amir
My biggest worry was that Vincent was going to show up. He had already said he
could hardly wait for that matchup. I was ready for a barrage of "two programs
with rude / primitif (sic) / etc. evaluations, poor books, and so forth."
Fortunately it didn't happen. :)
Guess I had more than one kind of luck for this event. :)
This page took 0.01 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.