Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 00:15:02 11/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2005 at 17:55:29, Joachim Rang wrote: >On November 16, 2005 at 17:42:56, John Merlino wrote: > >>On November 16, 2005 at 17:35:29, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On November 16, 2005 at 17:04:23, Joachim Rang wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>In my tuning for Fruit I stumbled over the following game when a very promising >>>>looking sacrifice does seem to loose the game. After that white can compromise >>>>blacks king side completely but seems unable to proceed the attack and loose >>>>afterwards. I have analyzed this and it does indeed seem the game continuation >>>>is rather forced and leads to a inferior position of white: >>>> >>>[D]rqrb2k1/5pp1/2b2P1p/p2n1n1P/1p2N3/1N2BB2/PPP2Q2/1K1R3R w - - 0 27 am Bxh6?! >> >>That's the way it looks to me, but the program will have to see at least 24 >>plies ahead (pretty tough with that much wood on the board) to see the problem. >> >>It also looks like 34.c4 Ne3 35.Rd5 Nxd5 36.Nxf7+ Rxf7 37.Bxd5 Re7 38.Rf1 Rxh7 >>39.Rf2 might be a slight improvement, but I don't have the time to really check >>it out. >> >>jm > >Yes it is incredible deep. :-) > >34.c4 is probably a better defense for white but in your line white is the >exchange down and I don't see enough compensation for that for white. The 34th >move is the first move where there are really alternatives for white perhaps >34.c3 as well but white is already worse on move 34 I think. > >Joacchim Why not sac the Bishop? It looks strong! 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.