Author: John Merlino
Date: 09:23:56 08/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2005 at 21:13:58, K. Burcham wrote: >On August 09, 2005 at 18:44:03, John Merlino wrote: > >>CM9_R1 on an AMD 2500 finds Nxh6+ in five seconds, and finds Rg5+ in less than >>one second. >> >>jm > > > [D] r3rbk1/3q1pp1/p1b2n1p/npp1pN2/8/2PPB1NP/PPBQ1PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 1 > >Shredder 9.1 UCI: > >1.a3 > ² (0.32) Depth: 14/38 00:01:02 28333kN >1.a3 Qd5 > ² (0.32) Depth: 14/38 00:01:12 33034kN >1.Nxg7 > ² (0.33) Depth: 14/38 00:01:25 39661kN >1.Nxg7 > ² (0.68) Depth: 14/38 00:01:27 40416kN >1.Nxg7 Qd5 2.f3 Bxg7 3.Bxh6 e4 4.fxe4 Bxh6 5.Qxh6 Qe5 6.Nf5 Nh7 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 >Qf6 9.Qh5 Nc4 10.Rab1 > ± (0.80) Depth: 14/38 00:01:33 43793kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxg7 Kxg7 4.d4 e4 5.Qf4 cxd4 6.Nf5+ Kh8 7.Nxd4 Nc4 >8.Nxc6 Qxc6 9.Bxe4 > ± (0.94) Depth: 15/40 00:01:46 50104kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 > ² (0.69) Depth: 16/40 00:02:03 58747kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxg7 Kxg7 4.d4 Re6 5.Bf5 Qd5 6.f3 exd4 7.Nh5+ Kh8 >8.Bxe6 Qxh5 9.cxd4 fxe6 10.Qxa5 cxd4 > ² (0.51) Depth: 16/42 00:02:15 64805kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 > ± (0.76) Depth: 17/42 00:04:00 115320kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 2.Bxh6 Nh7 > ± (0.76) Depth: 17/44 00:04:17 124076kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 > ± (1.01) Depth: 18/50 00:06:56 202826kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxg7 Kxg7 4.b4 cxb4 5.cxb4 Bxg2 6.Kxg2 Nc6 7.d4 Nxd4 > ± (1.02) Depth: 18/50 00:07:29 220476kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxg7 Kxg7 4.d4 Re6 5.Bf5 exd4 6.Bxe6 fxe6 7.cxd4 Qd5 > ± (0.93) Depth: 19/53 00:11:41 345895kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxg7 Kxg7 4.b4 cxb4 5.cxb4 Bxg2 6.Kxg2 Nc6 7.Bd1 Nd4 >8.Kh2 Kh8 9.Qh6 f5 10.Rc1 > ± (1.04) Depth: 20/57 00:22:56 684414kN > > >Deep Fritz 8: > >1.Qe2 Rad8 2.Rad1 Nd5 3.Qg4 Nxe3 4.Nxe3 Qxg4 5.Nxg4 Bd6 6.Nf5 Bc7 7.Nge3 Re6 >8.d4 cxd4 > = (-0.20) Depth: 13/39 00:01:01 78362kN >1.Nxh6+! > = (-0.19) Depth: 13/40 00:02:41 211601kN >1.Nxh6+! > = (-0.04) Depth: 13/40 00:02:47 218940kN >1.Nxh6+ gxh6 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxf8 Rxf8 4.Rxe5 Nc4 5.Rg5+ Kh8 6.Qf4 Nxb2 7.Rxc5 Rac8 > = (0.01) Depth: 13/40 00:02:54 228110kN >1.Nxh6+ gxh6 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxf8 Rxf8 4.Rxe5 Nc4 5.Rg5+ Kh8 6.Qf4 Nxb2 7.Rxc5 Rac8 > = (0.01) Depth: 14/41 00:03:30 278154kN >1.Nxh6+ gxh6 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxf8 Rxf8 4.Rxe5 Nc4 5.Rg5+ Kh8 6.Qf4 Nxb2 7.Rxc5 Bb7 >8.Qf5 Qxf5 > = (0.19) Depth: 15/44 00:06:04 489859kN >1.Nxh6+ gxh6 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxf8 Rxf8 4.Rxe5 Nc4 5.Rg5+ Kh8 6.Qf4 Nxb2 7.Rxc5 Bb7 >8.Qf5 Qxf5 > = (0.19) Depth: 16/45 00:12:21 1006016kN >1.Nxg7! > = (0.19) Depth: 16/49 00:31:20 2520267kN >1.Nxg7 Bxg7 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxg7 Kxg7 4.d4 e4 5.Qf4 cxd4 6.Nf5+ Kh8 7.Nxd4 Bd5 > = (0.23) Depth: 16/49 00:34:11 2753559kN After forcing 1.Nxg7 Bxg7 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxg7 Kxg7, the eval is only slightly higher (about 0.1 better) than it is in the initial position for 1.Nxh6+. But if I force the same number of moves with 1.Nxh6+ gxh6 2.Bxh6 Nh7 3.Bxf8 Rxf8, then the eval is almost a half-pawn better for Nxh6+. I think both moves accomplish pretty much the same thing, and it is really just a matter of the engine's style as to how it wants to accomplish it. jm
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.