Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: MY test position, is from Spaasky-Larsen (Belgrade)

Author: Vincent Lejeune

Date: 00:39:38 01/03/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 02, 2006 at 20:01:17, stuart taylor wrote:

>On January 02, 2006 at 19:47:41, Vincent Lejeune wrote:
>
>>On January 02, 2006 at 19:10:34, stuart taylor wrote:
>>
>>>On January 02, 2006 at 12:29:06, Vincent Lejeune wrote:
>>>
>>>>On January 02, 2006 at 11:53:20, stuart taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In which it clearly seems analytically provable that Spaasky's play was
>>>>>faultless, yet extremely hard to see as being so, and is also very deep and
>>>>>unclear....except after great and deep analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>>But as usual, I'm not organised enough to post the position again,  although I
>>>>>did atleast once before.
>>>>>
>>>>>Questions are
>>>>>1)How long does it take for Rybka to find .....rh1?
>>>>
>>>>This post show that Rh1 is not the best move, Bxe3 is stronger
>>>>http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=346018
>>>
>>>This is simply not the strongest move, but is also strong.
>>>But Rh1 takes mch longer for computers to find and to fully understand.
>>>S.Taylor
>>
>>I think you're wrong. But, please, post lines to be sure ...
>
>I would love to. I analyzed these things in great length several times (computer
>assisted). But I'm not set up for posting lines at the momment.
>But......for what it's worth,   I'm confident that if you would do a thorough
>computer assisted analysis, you would see for yourself what I mean. (unless you
>think you went deeper than I did, but I don't see why you would have done so).
>S.T.

The link I gave is an anlysis, 11h20 long, with hiarcs 9, it's already a good
starting point. Could you improved the 2 best lines ?

Hiarcs 9 analyse , 3 best moves, 11h20m of thinking on an amd 2800+

Larssen - Spasski
2kr3r/ppp1qpp1/2p5/2b2b2/2P1pPP1/1P2P1p1/PBQPB3/RN2K1R1 b Q - 0 1

Analysis by Hiarcs 9:

1. -+ (-9.66): 1...Fxe3 2.Cc3 Ff2+ 3.Rd1 Fxg1 4.Dc1 e3 5.gxf5 Txd2+ 6.Dxd2 exd2
7.Rc2 Fd4 8.Fd3 De3 9.Td1 Th2 10.b4 Dxf4
2. -+ (-5.78): 1...Th1 2.Txh1 g2 3.Tg1 Dh4+ 4.Rd1 Dh1 5.Dc1 Dxg1+ 6.Rc2 Dxc1+
7.Fxc1 Fd7 8.Fa3 g1D 9.Fxc5


>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>2)And how long does it take to find .....h4?
>>>>>3)BUT, DOES it ever find the move before, which is .....h5?
>>>>>4)Then, finally, DOES it ever find (before that)......Ng4?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sorry I didn't put up the moves again, but anyone who is familiar with it
>>>>>will readily find the position I'm refering to.
>>>>>
>>>>>CY maybe you can ask Jack to put it up!
>>>>>
>>>>>For questions 3 and 4, I wouldn't consider it extreme to give Rybka 5 hours
>>>>>each. But even if it finds answer to q.2 with answer tro q.1 in its analysis,
>>>>>within only a few minutes, that would also be very good.
>>>>>S.Taylor



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.