Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 16:36:18 01/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2006 at 10:15:23, chandler yergin wrote: >On January 28, 2006 at 08:54:23, Eduard Nemeth wrote: > >>[Event "Corus Chess 2006"] >>[Site "Wijk aan Zee"] >>[Date "2006.01.28"] >>[Round "12"] >>[White "Topalov"] >>[Black "Anand"] >>[Result "1/2-1/2"] >>[Annotator "?"] >>[PlyCount "45"] >>[EventDate "2006.??.??"] >> >>1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. a4 Rb8 8. c3 >>O-O 9. d4 Bb6 10. axb5 axb5 11. dxe5 Ng4 12. Na3 Ncxe5 13. h3 d6 14. Qe2 Nxf3+ >>15. Qxf3 Ne5 16. Qg3 Be6 17. Bxe6 fxe6 18. Nxb5 Rxf2 19. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 20. Qxf2 >>Rxb5 21. Qe2 Rb8 22. Bf4 Qf6 23. Rf1 1/2-1/2 >> >> >>Topalov - Anand, Corus Chess 2006: >> >>[D]1rbq1rk1/2pp1ppp/1b6/1p2n3/4P1n1/NBP2N1P/1P3PP1/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 1 >> >>Anand (as black!) played here very and strong fantastic move 13...d6!? > >It loses by Analysis By Fritz 5.32? Why not use a better engine and your head? I mean you were an USCF Expert Chan. There is no question that analysis has shown a draw after 13..d6 14.hg..Bxg4= . I won't go into it as other members have shown some reasonable analysis. Anand had either done his homework, or just saw it OTB, which he is quite capable of doing. >> >>Which program can it finds? >> >>Or are such moves a other dimension "over" computers? > >New game >[D]1rbq1rk1/2pp1ppp/1b6/1p2n3/4P1n1/NBP2N1P/1P3PP1/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 1 > >Analysis by Fritz 5.32: > >1. ² (0.44): 1...Nxf3+ 2.Qxf3 Ne5 3.Qg3 d6 4.Bg5 Qd7 5.Bf6 Ng6 6.Bd4 >2. ² (0.62): 1...Nxf2 2.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 3.Kxf2 Nxf3 4.Qxf3 b4 5.cxb4 Qh4+ 6.Kf1 >3. ² (0.62): 1...Bxf2+ 2.Rxf2 Nxf2 3.Kxf2 >4. ² (0.62): 1...b4 2.cxb4 Nxf2 3.Rxf2 Bxf2+ >5. +- (1.44): 1...d6 2.hxg4 Bxg4 3.Bf4 Bxf3 4.gxf3 Qf6 5.Bxe5 dxe5 6.Nxb5 >6. +- (1.97): 1...d5 2.hxg4 Bxg4 3.Qxd5 Nxf3+ 4.gxf3 Bxf3 5.Qf5 Be2 6.Bg5 > >(Yergin, MyTown 28.01.2006) BTW Fritz5.32 gives a much better score for Black than this after you force the moves 13..d6 14.gxf4..Bxg4. Albiet this is shallow analysis. Analysis by Fritz 5.32: 1. ± (0.75): 15.Nc2 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Qf6 17.Ne1 Qg6+ 18.Kh2 Qh5+ 19.Kg3 Qg6+ 2. = (0.00): 15.Bd5 Nxf3+ 16.gxf3 Qh4 17.fxg4 Qg3+ 18.Kh1 Qh3+ 19.Kg1 Qg3+ (McCracken, none 28.01.2006) Or Shredder 8... Analysis by Shredder 8: 1. ² (0.27): 15.Nc2 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Qf6 17.Ne1 Qg6+ 18.Kh2 Qh5+ 19.Kg3 Qg6+ 20.Kh4 Rfe8 21.Bf4 Qf6+ 22.Kg3 b4 23.Qd2 bxc3 24.Qc2 2. = (-0.06): 15.Bd5 c6 16.Bb3 Nxf3+ 17.gxf3 Bh3 18.Bf4 Bxf1 19.Kxf1 Qh4 20.Bg3 Qh3+ 21.Ke1 Qh1+ 22.Kd2 Qh6+ 23.Kc2 Qd2+ 24.Kxd2 Be3+ 25.Kxe3 (McCracken, none 28.01.2006) Regardless, White isn't winning and that is the point of 12..d6!, to equalize. 12..b4 may be a good try as well? Anyway, your remark, "It loses by analysis." is incorrect, unless you believe the output you provided is best. It's not the best IMO. 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.