Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:09:39 01/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 1999 at 22:52:24, Peter McKenzie wrote: >I don't know about Qxc7, but we (Vincent Diepeveen & Alexandure Kure) analysed >Bxf5 for quite a while on ICC. Our conclusion is that it is crushing. After >Bxf5 ef Rae1+ Kd8 Nxf5 Qh7 h4 white has a terrific bind and will soon play Re7 >and probably Rfe1 to good effect. The knight combines much better with the >heavy pieces than the bishop in this position, supporting the e7 square is key I >think. > >cheers, >Peter Yes, after 8 ply DIEP changes from Nxf5 to Bxf5 and then after some time slowly the huge scores come in. Making just a single move gives already +3.xx scores. Nimzo at some moves even gets +6.0. Bxf5 is completely over. However more mistakes have been made by Rebel. Rf2 move of rebel is also weird. Diep prefers h3 there, which simply wins. After making Rf2 (or Re6) position gets hard. Sure white must be able to win the endgame somehow, DIEP's score drops directly half a pawn after Rf2. Incredible bad is of course Bxd7??. This is a plain blunder. Now i can imagine this is hard for programs. Diep even needs 15 ply to see that (lucky it gets to that depth very soon). It's quite lucky seeing it actually. Openings analyzes are a lot harder to do. Sure a few hours are not enough to answer whether Qe2 is much better than O-O. Vincent
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.