Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 10:21:46 01/03/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2006 at 07:51:15, stuart taylor wrote: >On January 03, 2006 at 03:39:38, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > >>On January 02, 2006 at 20:01:17, stuart taylor wrote: .. >>>>>>>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. Yes , it was 11 hours 20 minutes long. And when I see a score like -9.66, I think the best way to prove wich line is the best it's to find the mate :-) > >> 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 >>
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.