Author: stuart taylor
Date: 04:51:15 01/03/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2006 at 03:39:38, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >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, How long is that? Is that 11 hours 20 minutes? Or what? If nowhere near, then one needs to re-analyze from points further down, too. Computers see different things when they are closer up. > with hiarcs 9, it's already a good >starting point. Could you improved the 2 best lines ? However, Rh1 is not necesary, in order to have played h4 (earlier), since Bxe3 (and maybe something else too) also justifies the earlier moves. And this was not the major major thing I wanted to know what Rybka says about, but in passing, also that. In any case, if you are still sure that Bxe3 is even better than Rhi, and have analyzed further than me, then congratulations. But I'm still very sorry, but I cannot do want I want to do at this time, and I hope in the near future I will have better computer access and program access, and knowledge how to utilize them properly etc. Then, for sure, this will probably be the first position I will be studying again in depth, with the latest Rybka or other best program which I'll have. regards S.Taylor > >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.