Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 15:06:44 05/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2005 at 12:30:33, John Merlino wrote: >On May 12, 2005 at 20:50:32, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On May 12, 2005 at 11:39:38, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On May 12, 2005 at 02:37:23, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>Nxf7 is tempting but I believe Qe2 is stronger, with a killer threat of Nxf7! >>>>next move. >>>> >>>>This position is taken from a blitz game I played tonight. >>>> >>>>[D]r2qkbnr/1b3ppp/p3p3/2ppN3/3P1B2/2N5/PPP2PPP/R2QR1K1 w kq - 0 12 >>>> >>>>Terry >>> >>>CM9_R1 on a P4-2.4 never considers either moves, and prefers Na4 with a good >>>score: >>> >>>Time Depth Score Positions Moves >>>0:00 1/4 1.04 13734 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Qg4 g6 14.Nd3 >>>0:00 1/5 1.12 23697 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Nd3 Be7 14.Qg4 Bf6 >>>0:00 1/6 1.21 84363 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Qg4 Qf6 14.Nd3 >>> h5 15.Qg3 >>>0:01 1/7 1.04 203765 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Qh5 g6 14.Qf3 Rc8 >>> 15.Be3 Qf6 16.Bxc5 Qxf3 17.Nxf3 >>> Rxc5 >>>0:05 1/8 1.03 772074 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Nd3 Be7 14.Qg4 >>> Nf6 15.Qxg7 Rg8 16.Qh6 >>>0:08 1/8 1.16 1323433 12.Na4 cxd4 13.Qxd4 Rc8 14.Qa7 >>> Qe7 15.Nf3 Qb4 16.Rac1 >>>0:12 1/9 1.19 1904384 12.Na4 cxd4 13.Qxd4 f6 14.Nd3 e5 >>> 15.Nac5 Qb6 16.Qa4+ Bc6 17.Qa3 >>>0:25 2/10 1.22 4168922 12.Na4 cxd4 13.Qxd4 f6 14.Nb6 fxe5 >>> 15.Bxe5 Ne7 16.Nxa8 Bxa8 17.Bxg7 >>>1:40 2/11 1.41 18471216 12.Na4 cxd4 13.Qxd4 Qa5 14.Bd2 >>> Qb5 15.Re3 f6 16.Rb3 fxe5 17.Rxb5 >>> exd4 18.Rxb7 >>>6:28 2/12 1.64 76297720 12.Na4 c4 13.Qh5 g6 14.Qf3 Rc8 >>> 15.Nc5 Bxc5 16.dxc5 Qe7 17.Rad1 >>> Rxc5 18.Ng4 d4 >>> >>>jm >> >> >>I still would go with Qe2! >> >>Look at play, and see if the computers will refute this. >> >> >>1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 e6 4.exd5 cxd5 5.Bb5+ Nc6 6.Nf3 Bd7 7.Bf4 a6 >>8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.O-O c5 10.Re1 Bc6 11.Ne5 Bb7 12.Qe2 Nf6 13.Nxf7 Kxf7 >>14.Qxe6+ Kg6 15.Re3 h6 16.Rg3+ Kh7 17.Qf7 Bc8 18.Rg6 Ng4 19.Nxd5 Ra7 >>20.Nf6+ Qxf6 21.Rxf6 Rxf7 22.Rxf7 cxd4 23.Rc7 Bb4 24.h3 Nf6 25.Be5 Ba5 >>26.Rc4 Re8 27.Bxf6 gxf6 28.Rxd4 ++- >> >>[D]2b1r3/7k/p4p1p/b7/3R4/7P/PPP2PP1/R5K1 b - - 0 28 >> >>Terry > >I cannot argue with your line at all. Playing all the way through it (relatively >quickly), I can find no obvious improvements for either side. > >However, CM9_R1 analyzes the final position with a score of +1.65 for White, >which is only 0.01 better than the evaluation for 12.Na4 above: > >Time Depth Score Positions Moves >0:00 1/5 1.72 8313 28...Re2 29.Rc4 Bb7 30.Rd1 Bb6 >0:00 2/6 1.84 23589 28...Re2 29.Rc4 Be6 30.Rc6 Be1 > 31.Kf1 >0:00 2/6 1.81 48442 28...Bc7 29.Rad1 Rg8 30.R1d3 Be6 > 31.Rc3 >0:00 2/7 1.72 90635 28...Bc7 29.Rad1 Rg8 30.Rh4 Be5 > 31.c3 Bb7 >0:01 2/8 1.77 208932 28...Bc7 29.Rad1 Rg8 30.Kf1 Be6 > 31.c4 Be5 32.Re4 >0:02 3/9 1.74 507471 28...Bc7 29.Rad1 Re7 30.c4 Rg7 > 31.Kf1 a5 32.g4 Be5 >0:08 3/10 1.78 1776311 28...Bc7 29.c3 Rg8 30.Re1 Be5 31.Rh4 > Bf5 32.g3 Bd6 33.Rd1 >0:10 3/10 1.63 2211053 28...Re2 29.Rc4 Bd7 30.Rf4 Kg6 > 31.Rd1 Be6 32.Ra4 Bb6 33.Rxa6 Bxf2+ > 34.Kf1 >0:14 3/11 1.63 3055320 28...Re2 29.Rc1 Bb6 30.Rf4 f5 31.Kf1 > Rd2 32.Ke1 Rd6 33.Rd1 Rc6 >0:24 4/12 1.61 5469654 28...Re2 29.Rc1 Bb6 30.Rf4 Kg6 > 31.Kf1 Rd2 32.Ke1 Rd5 33.Rd1 Re5+ > 34.Kf1 Bf5 >1:05 5/13 1.70 16270274 28...Re2 29.Rc1 Bb6 30.Rf4 f5 31.Kf1 > Rd2 32.Ke1 Rd5 33.Rd1 Rb5 34.b4 Be6 >3:58 6/14 1.65 59675268 28...Re2 29.Rc1 Bb6 30.Rf4 Kg7 > 31.Kf1 Rd2 32.Ke1 Rd5 33.Rd1 Rb5 > 34.b4 Re5+ 35.Kf1 Bf5 > >jm Hi John, thanks for the second look. I feel programs need to consider Qe2 with the idea of Nxf7! seriously but the problem is depth it appears. On further looking at 12.Na4! I see it may be better overall but both lead to wins, and I think Qe2 is more strategical, as well as tactical, it has a plan, and that is where computers are still a bit weak. Still Nc4! seems it may win tactically with more force. Here's an improvement in the Nc4 line. 12.Na4 c4 13.Qh5 g6 14.Qf3 Rc8 15.Nc5 Bxc5 16.dxc5 Qe7 17.Qc3! [D]2r1k1nr/1b2qp1p/p3p1p1/2PpN3/2p2B2/2Q5/PPP2PPP/R3R1K1 b k - 0 17 Terry
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.