Author: Alex Shalamanov
Date: 01:27:13 09/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2005 at 01:52:05, J.Dufek wrote: >Bad impression. Lot of my analysis i made with Fritz, because my opponents play >with him. But results are very very bad. It's only about own experience - you >have maybe very good results with Fritz, because he understand yours positions, >but for my work (pls look at iccf.com for my rating) is uselles. 3 months ago i >analyzed one my corr. position - he offer for opponent 3 or 4 moves (totaly >different) with evalution 0,00. This is not only one position... If you mean Fritz 8X3D, I would agree that it's not strong enough because it was the earliest version, but I prefer analyzing with Fritz 1.2.0 (Bilbao) or Deep Fritz 8. They are more sophisticated than the predecessor. Of course, the style I use (developing complicated acute positions) may count too, but on the whole I'm quite happy with DF8. As a proof I can present a position arisen in ICCF WS/M/003. What we'are having now, is a complicated endgame. The game is still going on but I'm sure it's dead won, so I'm giving it now. [D] 7k/3r4/2rN1p1p/2P4P/1P1p4/P2bpKR1/6P1/2R5 w - - 0 56 I've analyzed this endgame with different engines (Shredder 9 UCI, Fruit 2.1, Hiarcs 9, Fritz 8 Bilbao, Deep Fritz 8) but it's only DF8 that produced the correct easy winning move sequence: 56.Rg4 Rdxd6 (56...Rcxd6 changes nothing much) 57.cxd6 Rxd6 58.Rc8+ Kh7 59.Rc7+ Kh8 60.Rgg7! +- I don't know, if the hardware counts here (Celeron 333/128MB RAM) and with the better hardware other chess engines would also find the sequence, but with what I have this engine seems to work best of all. The other engines proposed 60.a4?! as the best move. Kind regards, Alex
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.