Author: chandler yergin
Date: 16:45:03 01/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2006 at 19:36:18, Terry McCracken wrote: >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 Sorry Terry, I was going by the position given on the Board. It is correct. If you want to go a few more moves ahead of course the Evaluation may change. But what is surprising in that?
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.