Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:07:19 07/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2004 at 05:51:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 20, 2004 at 05:36:08, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 20, 2004 at 04:54:30, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On July 20, 2004 at 02:44:33, Roy Brunjes wrote: >>> >>>>Earlier I posted about this position with the question "Is the exchange >>>>sacrifice 13. ... Rxf4!? sound?" >>>> >>>>[D] r1b3k1/pp2n1b1/1qn1prpp/2pp4/5B1P/2PP1NP1/PPQ2PB1/RN3RK1 b - - 0 13 >>>> >>>>Some readers thought it should be, others were not so convinced they would play >>>>it themselves in a game (not necessarily a vote for or against the soundness, >>>>just that they might not play that move themselves in a game). >>> >>>just for the record, the strong players liked it very much, while the weak >>>players doubted it's soundness... >>> >>>cheers >>> martin >> >>As far as I see movei of today has no chance to find it. >>It can see enough compensation but it evaluates alternatives as better for black >>and even after Rxf4 exf4 Bd7 it can see only +0.27 for black at depth 15 when >>the score before Rxf4 was near +0.4 for black. > >And now at depth 15 it changes it's mind from Re1 to Nbd2 with only +0.24 for >black. > >I did not see other programs play Nbd2 in the posted games so maybe Nbd2 is a >better try to defend white's position. > >Main line starts Nbd2 Rf8 Rae1 Qc7 > >Uri If I analyze some plies later then movei says that Qc7 in that line is not the best and Rxf4 is better +0.37/14 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.