Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 12:52:50 06/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2005 at 15:08:31, Will Singleton wrote: >On June 29, 2005 at 10:23:49, Richard Pijl wrote: > >>The following position occurred in an ICC game between Amateur and the Baron >>[D]2r5/p2nnkNp/1pq1p1pP/3pPp2/2rP4/P1P3Q1/3B1PP1/R4RK1 b - - >>To my surprise Baron didn't hesitate to sac the exchange on c3 and won the game, >>probably partly because Amateur didn't handle the endgame too well (exchange of >>queens was probably not a good idea). > >Maybe so, but I will say that Shredder thinks that trading queens is ok. I must confess I followed the suggestion of the Baron here, giving about a draw score for the sac, expecting Amateur not to trade queens. This and my initial thought that the sac is interesting, but dangerous, made me to suspect that Amateur must have made another mistake elsewhere, and the queen trade seemed to be a good candidate. I think the knight on g7 is key here. It isn't doing much and going nowhere. So if an engine thinks it is ahead, trading queens may sound ok. >The >sac looks pretty strong to me. I guess you could play the game out against a >variety of other engines to get a better idea of its worth. The only engine I've found to play Rxc3 so far is crafty. Also Ruffian considers it, but I wasn't patient enough to check whether it was holding on to it (following a slight drop in score I suspected it wouldn't). But you're right. To know the real value of this move, more analysis is necessary. I'll try to do some overnight analysis. Richard.
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.