Author: Eelco de Groot
Date: 04:54:27 02/06/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2006 at 17:09:51, Eelco de Groot wrote:
>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)
Continued analysis from Shredder 9:
22/48 235:38 -0.57 7...c6 8.Pf3 Pbd7 9.Dc2 Le7 10.O-O Te8
11.Tfe1 Pf8 12.e4 Pe6 (3.886.359.272) 274
23/58 313:00 -0.55 7...c6 8.Pf3 Pbd7 9.Dc2 Le7 10.O-O Te8
11.a3 Pf8 12.b4 h6 13.Lh4 Ld6 14.b5 Lg4
15.bxc6 (5.852.287.693) 311
24/55 482:50 -0.52 7...c6 8.Pf3 Pbd7 9.O-O Te8 10.Tc1 Ld6
11.Te1 Le7 12.Pe2 Pf8 13.Pf4 h6
14.Lxf6 Lxf6 15.a3 Lg4 16.h3 (10.187.548.042) 351
25/55 1015:02-0.46 7...c6 8.Dc2 h6 9.Lh4 Ld6 10.Pf3 Te8
11.O-O Lg4 12.Db3 b6 13.Da4 b5
14.Dc2 (24.019.545.270) 394
>
>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.