Author: Ryan B.
Date: 00:51:02 11/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2005 at 03:15:02, Terry McCracken wrote: >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 If you follow the simple rules on when to do a minor sac for a king attack this is not the time. Still the move does look ok at first but ends up being a failed attack if you work it out. Ryan
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.