Author: Eelco de Groot
Date: 14:09:51 02/05/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2006 at 13:12:39, Eelco de Groot wrote:
>On February 05, 2006 at 11:02:21, Dadi Jonsson wrote:
>
>>On February 05, 2006 at 10:42:31, Eelco de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>On February 05, 2006 at 07:39:06, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote:
>>>
>>>>[D] rnbqk2r/ppp2ppp/5n2/3p2B1/1b1P4/2N5/PP2PPPP/R2QKBNR w KQkq - 0 6
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>the last black move, bb4, is given a ? by fritz book. Consistent with this view,
>>>>chesslab has white winning 50% and losing only 9%. My 1 million data base has
>>>>white winning 53% and losing only 11% (n = 90). the average strength of people
>>>>who play bb4 is 2274 but their average performance is 2144
>>>>
>>>>The engines think the position is fine.
>>>>
>>>>Am i missing something? Why do humans do so badly at a position the engines
>>>>think is fine?
>>>
>>>Hello Joseph,
>>>
>>>A good theorybook on the French could probably tell much more about this line
>>No. You are missing something here. The e-pawn hasn't even moved yet.
>
>Hello Dadi!
>
>Sorry you are right. But the positions are very similar! And the line is is a
>reasonable line to investigate if you intend to play the French with Black,
>White might try 5.Bg5 in the exchange variation to avoid theory. Bb4 is a
>possible answer for Black. How about this line then, no French or Nimzo-Indian
>but Queens Gambit declined?
>
>5.Bg5 is played much more often here
>
>[Event "?"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "5/2/2006"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Eelco de Groot"]
>[Black "Eelco de Groot"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Opening "D35 QGD: Exchange, Positional Line"]
>
>1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Bb4 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. e3 c5 *
>
>
>Pro Deo Vulcan gives
>
> [D]r1bqk2r/pp1n1ppp/5n2/2pp2B1/1b1P4/2N1PN2/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq c6
>
> 00:00:00 1.00 0.16 8.dxc5 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Nxc5
> 00:00:00 1.03 0.27 8.Bb5
> 00:00:00 2.00 0.23 8.Bb5 O-O 9.dxc5 Nxc5
> 00:00:00 2.01 0.25 8.Bd3 Qa5
> 00:00:00 3.00 0.23 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bf4
> 00:00:00 4.00 0.18 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bf4 Ne4 10.Bxe4
> 00:00:00 4.04 0.19 8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Qa5 10.Qc2 Rxh7
> 00:00:00 4.05 0.22 8.dxc5 Bxc3 9.bxc3 h6 10.Bf4 Nxc5
> 00:00:00 4.12 0.32 8.Rc1 c4 9.Be2
> 00:00:00 5.00 0.25 8.Rc1 Qa5 9.dxc5 Qxa2 10.Qd2
> 00:00:00 6.00 0.24 8.Rc1 Qa5 9.dxc5 Qxa2 10.Qd2 Ne4
> 00:00:00 7.00 0.16 8.Rc1 Qa5 9.dxc5 Qxa2 10.Bxf6 Nxf6 11.Qd2 Bxc3
> 12.Rxc3
> 00:00:00 7.01 0.20 8.Bb5 a6 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bxf6 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Qxf6
> 00:00:00 8.00 0.17 8.Bb5 a6 9.Bd3 Qa5 10.Qd2 h6 11.Bf4 b5
> 00:00:01 8.02 0.25 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bf4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Ne4
> 12.Bxe4 dxe4
> 00:00:01 9.00 0.18 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bf4 Qa5 10.O-O c4 11.Bf5 Bxc3 12.bxc3
> 00:00:03 10.00 0.24 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bxf6 Nxf6 10.O-O Bxc3 11.bxc3 c4
> 12.Bc2 Qa5 13.Qd2 Bg4
> 00:00:10 11.00 0.11 8.Bd3 c4 9.Bf5 h6 10.Bxf6 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Nxf6
> 12.Bxc8 Qxc8 13.Qa4 Qd7 14.Qb4
> 00:00:15 11.01 0.15 8.Rc1 Qa5 9.Nd2 h6 10.Bxf6 Nxf6 11.dxc5 Bd7
> 12.Bd3 Bxc5
> 00:00:39 12.00 0.19 8.Rc1 Qa5 9.Nd2 cxd4 10.exd4 O-O 11.a3 Re8
> 12.Be2 Bxc3 13.Rxc3
> 00:00:42 12.01 0.21 8.Bd3 c4 9.Bf5 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Bc2 Nb6 12.Ba4
> Bd7 13.Bxd7 Nxd7 14.O-O Nb6
> 00:00:58 12.10 0.25 8.Qc2 h6 9.Bh4 g5
> 00:02:24 13.00 0.23 8.Qc2 Qb6 9.Be2 Ne4 10.O-O Bxc3 11.bxc3
> 00:05:41 14.00 0.24 8.Qc2 Qa5 9.Bd3 c4 10.Bf5
> 00:13:59 15.00 0.27 8.Qc2 Qa5 9.Bd3 c4
>
>Pro Deo bookmove is 8.Bd3, 8.Bb5 has a minus
>
>Or a variation that Shredder plays after 5..Bb4
>
>
>[Event "?"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "5/2/2006"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Eelco de Groot"]
>[Black "Eelco de Groot"]
>[Result "*"]
>
>1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Bb4
>
>[D] rnbqk2r/ppp2ppp/5n2/3p2B1/1b1P4/2N5/PP2PPPP/R2QKBNR w KQkq -
>
>6. e3 O-O 7. Bd3 *
>
>Shredder's bookmove is 7..Nbd7 but no games with this move were incorporated in
>the books statistics, only three games with 7..h6
>
>[D]rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/5n2/3p2B1/1b1P4/2N1P3/PP3PPP/R2QKBNR w KQ -
>
>Eelco
In the last position after 6.e3 O-O 7.Bd3 Shredder thinks that 7..c5 is also
possible. But 8..c4 seems a bit suspect, especially since there is no e-pawn to
keep this pawn formation alive. Maybe a later b7-b5 is possible for cover but it
still does seem a bit like overextending at the moment. Latest result, now 7..c6
is the move on top;
rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/5n2/3p2B1/1b1P4/2NBP3/PP3PPP/R2QK1NR b KQ -
Engine: Shredder 9 UCI (64 MB)
gemaakt door Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
17/33 5:43 -0.63 7...Pbd7 8.Pf3 h6 9.Lh4 c6 10.O-O Te8
11.Db3 Da5 12.Tac1 Ld6 (67.022.570) 195
17/33 7:48 -0.62++ 7...Te8 (93.058.693) 198
17/35 9:16 -0.61 7...Te8 8.Pf3 h6 9.Lh4 c6 10.O-O Ld6
11.Tc1 Pbd7 12.Lg3 Lxg3 13.hxg3 Pb6
14.Pe5 (111.519.180) 200
18/39 15:10 -0.67 7...Te8 8.Pf3 c6 9.Db3 (186.611.972) 205
18/40 16:25 -0.66++ 7...Pbd7 (203.018.688) 206
18/40 18:10 -0.65 7...Pbd7 8.Pf3 h6 9.Lh4 c6 10.O-O Te8
11.Dc2 Ld6 12.Tac1 Pf8 13.Lg3 Lxg3
14.hxg3 (226.215.018) 207
19/42 29:45 -0.68 7...Pbd7 8.Pf3 c6 9.Dc2 h6 10.Lh4 Te8
11.O-O Pb6 12.Pe5 Ld6 13.Lg3 De7 (374.334.695) 209
19/42 32:51 -0.67++ 7...Te8 (415.175.075) 210
19/42 35:10 -0.67 7...Te8 8.Pf3 c6 9.Db3 Ld6 10.O-O Pa6
11.Lxa6 bxa6 12.Da4 Lb7 13.Pe2 Tc8
14.Db3 Tc7 15.Tac1 (444.890.541) 210
19/43 42:22 -0.66++ 7...c5 (536.863.765) 211
19/43 45:03 -0.66 7...c5 8.Pge2 cxd4 9.Pxd4 Lxc3+
10.bxc3 Pbd7 11.O-O (570.159.834) 210
20/47 75:33 -0.66 7...c5 8.Pge2 c4 9.Lc2 Le6 10.Db1 h6
11.Lxf6 Dxf6 12.Pf4 Td8 13.a3 La5 (954.711.114) 210
20/47 85:06 -0.65++ 7...Pbd7 (1.078.385.741) 211
20/47 93:32 -0.65 7...Pbd7 8.Dc2 De8 (1.186.109.869) 211
21/51 148:20 -0.65 7...Pbd7 8.Dc2 h6 9.Lh4 c6 10.Pf3 Te8
11.O-O Pb6 12.Pe2 Ld6 13.Lg3 Lxg3 (1.885.533.296) 211
21/51 162:14 -0.64++ 7...c5 (2.058.130.537) 211
21/51 172:45 -0.63 7...c5 8.Pge2 c4 9.Lc2 Le6 10.Db1 h6
11.Lxf6 Dxf6 12.Pf4 Td8 13.a3 Le7
14.O-O Pc6 (2.270.710.840) 219
21/51 194:16 -0.62++ 7...c6 (2.816.863.101) 241
21/51 201:02 -0.60 7...c6 8.Pf3 Pbd7 9.Dc2 Le7 10.O-O Te8
11.Pe2 Pe4 12.Lxe7 Dxe7 13.Pg3 Pdf6
14.Pe5 (2.994.506.190) 248
(P=N,L=B,D=Q,T=R)
Looking up the begin-variation in NCO from John Nunn, it is to be found as a
transposition from lines with Bb4 played a move earlier, p.399 QGD Ragozin and
Vienna defences, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Bb4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5. There
several lines are given, lines with 6..h6 and 6..Nbd7 are given the most
treatment.
The "Shredder" line with e3 instead of Nf3, 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5
exd5 5. Bg5 Bb4 6. e3 (O-O 7. Bd3) probably in some cases transposes to the
above if White plays e3 after Nf3.
Although NCO is from 1999 I think these lines are still alive today so I don't
really see why 5..Bb4 in the transposed line should deserve an overall ?
evaluation from Fritz? But the answer must be somewhere in the Megadatabase (I
don't have it), if White has such good statistics with convincing number of
games it is not just because Black resigned immediately in this position!
Eelco
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.