< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 139 OF 140 ·
Later Kibitzing> 
Nov1818   centralfiles: <In the Rb1 line it may well be better to back solve...>
The key here might well be to back solve until you find a possible improvement investigate, if drawn continue backing up.
Personally I cannot find a single possible winning line with my machine<i am indeed primarily using stockfish 9> every single try has petered out to a draw. 

Nov1918   AylerKupp: <<diceman> Is it part of your software (or maybe custom programming by you?) that you can track PV moves vs ply depth?> Ha! You give me far too much credit (and I think that's rare :) ). But, no, I use the Arena 3.5 GUI which lists the top 5 moves (or whatever I set the MPV= parameter to) at each search ply. Then there's an option copy the analysis history to the clipboard and then I paste it and save it as a Word file. I do that for the 3 engines I use in the analyses (currently Houdini 6, Komodo 12.1, and Stockfish 9). So, yes, I can track PV moves for each engine vs. ply depth and you can see poor Team Black's evaluation gradually deteriorating by downloading an Excel spreadsheet from http://www.mediafire.com/file/frcfj.... I then, with the help of an Excel spreadsheet (what else?) calculate a RatingsWeighted Average (RWAvg) of the evaluations of the 3 engines for each of their 5 moves because, after all, I think that the evaluation of the highest rated engine (currently Stockfish) should be given a greater weight than the evaluations of the other two engines. And I save the results for the analyses at each ply. The data you see above are the results of the move rankings at each ply based on the RWAvg of the 3 engines at each ply. But no custom programming was involved, just capturing the engines' evaluation results ply by ply. 

Nov1918   AylerKupp: <<kwid> In the Rb1 line it may well be better to back solve from the draw position shown below to see if the engines can improve this line.> I'm not very familiar with back solving (or backward sliding), and I've never attempted to do it. From what I've read there are two approaches: (1) Use a very big hash table and move forward from the initial position. If your hash table is big enough, then there's a good likelihood that all or at least most of the positions used to define the lines are still in it. Therefore you can back up from the ending position one move at a time and, with the previously analyzed positions still in the table, you can find the alternative lines that got you there. But using this approach you first have to get to the ending position and for long lines that would take both a great amount of time and a very, very big hash table. I don't have that much memory in my computer since, being a 32bit machine, it's address space is "only" 4 GB which is small considering how big the address space of 64bit computers is. (2) You can start with the next to the last move in the line (54...hxg4) and see if the engines' analyses indicate that 55.hxg4 is White's best move. If it is, then restart the analysis at 54.g4. If it isn't, then start either a human or computer analysis (or both) on whatever move the engines considered best. This is no different than what I've been doing so far except in reverse. But it seems to me to be riskier in terms of finding the best sequence of moves, at least according to the engines, because if you're going forward from 18...Rf6 then if you find an engine suggestion (in this case 20.Bd5) which differs from the suggestion the analysis (in this case 20.Rb1), you can begin to investigate the engine's alternative immediately. But if you go backwards then each time that the engines' suggest an alternative move, if you immediately start to investigate that alternative, all your work might be for nothing if, once you restart the backwards solving, the engines once again suggest a reasonable alternative to the analysis' suggested best move. 

Nov1918   AylerKupp: <<kwid> To close out the discussion if Rf6 holds I searched in support of the white side and could not come up with any winning lines.> Given the complexity of the position and the many apparently reasonable alternative lines after each move, I'm not surprised. As I've said before, the number of possible moves and possibly also the number of possibly alternative moves grows exponentially as the search ply increases. So it's not possible for either human or computer to explore all the reasonable alternative moves. And, if you're trying to <conclusively> determine whether a particular move leads to a draw, a win, or a loss, then I think that's what you have to do. An alternate approach might be to consider all the possible alternative lines, or even only the reasonable alternative lines (which would eliminate most of the lines) as a population. You can then consider each analysis as a sample of that population, and you could calculate (something I haven't been able to figure out how do yet) how many "samples" (i.e. analyses) of the population you would need to do in order to achieve an adequate confidence level (95% is the usual number) that the draw result is correct. If you're not willing to live with that 5% uncertainly then you can increase your required confidence level to, say, 99%, if you are willing to do many, many more analyses. At the limit, of course, you can increase that confidence level to 100% if you are willing to analyze at least every reasonable line and as I've said before that is simply not a practical thing to do. But, unfortunately, if you take the word "conclusively" literally, I think that's what you have to do. That's what a tablebase generator does. 

Nov2018   AylerKupp: <<centralfiles> I am indeed surprised your old machine managed to get that far down the line in only a little over an hourthough when i said at least days i meant until it sees it closer to dead equal at 0.00 as it does after sliding.> Oh, what I thought that you were saying was that it would take "days" for Stockfish to establish 20...Kd8 as the best move. Starting out I had no idea how long it would take, if indeed it could find it at all. And, because multicore engines are nondeterministic, if you run the analysis again you will likely get a different result. FWIW I'm currently using an about 8yr old Intel Q9400 32bit system with 4 cores running at 2.66 GHz and 4 GB (~ 3.25 GB usable) running Windows XP SP3. I tried downloading the CPU Benchmark indicated on your link but it only runs on Windows & and above so I couldn't use it. I downloaded another performance test that ran under Windows XP & up and covered both 32bit and 64bit computers and ran it. But it wasn't obvious to me what it was trying to do and the output was full of trivial and irrelevant information so I gave up on it. I'll be gone for a few days but when I'll get back I'll download a reasonable performance test program that will run under Windows XP and covers both 32bit and 64bit machines and I'll give you the numbers for my machine and link to the program. Then, if you're curious, you can run it on your computer and see how its performance compares with mine. 

Nov2018   AylerKupp: <<centralfiles> I would think Stockfish 9s failure to find the draw until it is literally staring you in the face (considerably worse than stockfish 8) reflects on a serious flaw in the "improved" pruning.> Perhaps in this case. But is this a typical case? No pruning approach is likely to work for all cases (and by "working" I would say that means that it's better than its predecessor – by whatever criteria you use to define "better" – over 50% of the time). If it's "better" then that's the one you should use. If it isn't "better", then you shouldn't use it. But using just one example to form a conclusion about a change in implementation is not a good idea. You can always find exceptions to the rule. But the pruning heuristics are not necessarily simple. There are (many) more than one and their effects could very well be interrelated. When I was recently looking at the description of the Greenblatt program because of some questions that came up regarding the 3 games that Fischer played against it in 1977, the 1967 description of the program indicated that it used about 50 heuristics in what it called the plausible move generator which from its description it seems that it performs the search tree pruning function by discarding moves, and hence lines deriving from that move. That's 50 heuristics. In 1967! 

Nov2018   AylerKupp: <<centralfiles> I would frame the argument as follows ... Then why would we assume that white might be winning after 19...Rf6?> We can't. But neither can we assume that White is <not> winning. There are simply too few (I think) analyses (samples of the all the possible "reasonable" lines) to reach that conclusion. And I haven't yet figured out how to determine the number of analyses that would need to be done in order that the conclusion we reach is statistically significant. It could be a lot! 

Nov2018   AylerKupp: <<centralfiles? Then why would we assume that white might be winning after 19...Rf6? Isn't the logical conclusion here an overwhelmingly likely draw with best play?> But that's not what <kwid> said originally. His claim was that 19...Rf6 leads to a draw. Period.
"Always" and "Never" types of assertions are difficult to prove by examples and relatively easy to disprove because all it takes is one example of the opposite result to disprove it. And as I've said, given the relatively small number of analyses done compared to the number of reasonable alternative lines possible, I would not agree that the position after 19...Rf6 is overwhelmingly in favor of a likely draw. <How can we even compare this to 19...h6 when no one yet has been able to show a way where it is even a strong possibility that black draws?> Probably because no one seems to have anywhere near the fervor in favor of 19...h6 leading to a draw that you and <kwid> (and possibly others) feel that 19...Rf6 leads to a draw. So the effort that has been spent to "show" that 19...h6 (or any other 19th move by Black for that matter) leads to a draw is nowhere near as much as has been spent to "show" that 19...Rf6 leads to a draw. But even so I disagree wholeheartedly. In the engine vs. engine tournaments I conducted with the 12 games each starting either after 19...h6 or 19...Rf6, the results for Black with 19...h6 were better than the results for Black with 19...Rf6 (see Team White vs Team Black, 2017 (kibitz #3834)). So at least <some> evidence is available that 19...h6 gives better practical chances to draw than 19...Rf6 does and therefore it is "better" in that sense. See why it's risky to make "always" and "never" type of statements? But does that tournament conclusively show that 19...h6 was a better move than 19...Rf6, even in the practical sense? No, of course not. Probably (again) I didn't run enough games. And I ran the tournaments at Classic time controls of 40 moves in 2 hours. How does the average time of 3 minutes/move in the tournament I ran compare to the 2 days/move in the actual game in terms of being able to determine the best move for Black to make? I don't know, but I suspect that our chances to find the "best" move for Black were better at 2 days/move than at an average of 3 minutes per move. Convincing the team to vote for the "best" move is a different issue, as I'm sure you and <kwid> will agree. In fact, after playing in several of these team games, I think that convincing the team to vote for the best move may be harder than finding the best move in the first place! About the only anywhere near overwhelming evidence that tournament provided, I believe, is that after 24 games were played, Black was not able to win even once. While this may also not technically be "conclusive" either, it does seem that if Black has any expectation of winning, improvements for Black need to be found between 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 and 20.Nb5. Because, why would you play the Traxler if the best you can hope for is a draw? <Can we "conclusively" say its a draw, of course not, but even the initial starting position cannot "conclusively" be shown to be a draw...> I agree, that's what I've been saying all along. The position after 20.Nb5 is extremely complex as is the Traxler in general. So to "conclusively" prove anything is at least very hard, and possibly impossible. The best we could hope for, I think, is to show that a particular move at a particular position leads to the desired result in a statistically significant way to a level of confidence we can live with, and accepting the nonzero margin of error in the estimate. 

Nov2018   AylerKupp: <<centralfiles> The key here might well be to back solve until you find a possible improvement investigate, if drawn continue backing up.> Yes, that's what I thought I said or at least tried to say but with my usual verbosity I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. But my concern in terms of efficiency of the approach still stands; once a possible improvement is found you need to investigate it, and there's the possibility that the improvement forces you to discard all the previous analyses of subsequent moves. So, as you keep going backwards, the possibility of this happening probably increases (it certainly doesn't decrease!) the longer the line. So, as you work backwards to 19...Rf6, if indeed 20.Bd5 turns out to be a better move for White than 20.Rb1, then any work that you did based on 20.Rb1 needs to be "flushed". So it seems to me that going forward is more efficient in terms of having to flush any analysis previously made. And, as I said, one thing I didn't do is validate any of the computer lines, at least the ones that had the same True Rank (evaluation difference within [0.50]) by forward sliding whether by human or by computer. 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <AK> As was said earlier the engine tournaments serve almost no purpose here. If the black side deviated at all form our analysis the result is just about worthless.
If the white side deviated and won(doubtful) then the line played can be analyzed and should be seen as winning if no black improvement can be found.
The actual final standings in the tournament just seem meaningless. The Intel Q9400 is somewhat worse on paper then the one i'm using in most situations.
I would guess <RV> would be able to generate deeper analysis in far less time.
At 8 years of age there are probably several components in your system that are close to the end of their expected lifespan consider yourself somewhat lucky that thing is still alive... 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <AK> No one here thinks Black has theoretical winning chances in the traxler against high level opposition perhaps practical OTB chances but not more than that. Certainly Black has absolutely no real chance in these 8.b4 positions unless he can perhaps outplay a lower rated opponent in the complex endings not happening in high level engine tourney. 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <AK><<<centralfiles> I would frame the argument as follows ... Then why would we assume that white might be winning after 19...Rf6?>
We can't. But neither can we assume that White is <not> winning. There are simply too few (I think) analyses (samples of the all the possible "reasonable" lines) to reach that conclusion. And I haven't yet figured out how to determine the number of analyses that would need to be done in order that the conclusion we reach is statistically significant. It could be a lot!>
I don't really know what to make of this.
If all lines the engines are evaluating as possibly winning <+.7 or higher for arguments sake> can be shown to actually peter out to a draw<less than +.5> with best play, then we are left with lines the engines are evaluating as drawish why would we assume that some +.41 line is actually winning? it's seems terribly unlikely.
Statistical analysis of lines evaluated at +.7 or higher doesn't seem necessary, they can individually all be shown to peter out to lower evals or provable endgame draws for human analysts. 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <AK> <Probably because no one seems to have anywhere near the fervor in favor of 19...h6 leading to a draw that you and <kwid> (and possibly others) feel that 19...Rf6 leads to a draw. So the effort that has been spent to "show" that 19...h6 (or any other 19th move by Black for that matter) leads to a draw is nowhere near as much as has been spent to "show" that 19...Rf6 leads to a draw.> Lest we forget that ...h6 was actually played. Neither team found a line that might draw, nor did subsequent engine analysis find any real improvements for black.
At the same time no one has yet been able to show a line after ...Rf6 where black doesn't seem to be holding on to the half point though some posters might have dropped some obfuscating posts that imply otherwise without providing any analysis. (only real attempt to show win for white was by Ceri but those lines petered out to draw as well <Ceri was unfortunately given inferior black moves to analyze>) I don't understand how this little fact can be ignored. 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <About the only anywhere near overwhelming evidence that tournament provided, I believe, is that after 24 games were played, Black was not able to win even once. While this may also not technically be "conclusive" either, it does seem that if Black has any expectation of winning, improvements for Black need to be found between 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 and 20.Nb5. Because, why would you play the Traxler if the best you can hope for is a draw?> You play the traxler for the same reasons you play other gambits  great results against players that are not great with their king under pressure and not booked up to the hilt. The real Question of this whole exercise was more whether Black is busted theoretically or not. Though in a practical sense I would agree black is somewhat busted even though 19...Rf6 is a draw. With 8.b4 White has successfully turned the tables with black being the one under pressure to defend accurately. It's hard to imagine anyone wanting to play these positions OTB as black. 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <AK><I agree, that's what I've been saying all along. The position after 20.Nb5 is extremely complex as is the Traxler in general. So to "conclusively" prove anything is at least very hard, and possibly impossible. The best we could hope for, I think, is to show that a particular move at a particular position leads to the desired result in a statistically significant way to a level of confidence we can live with, and accepting the nonzero margin of error in the estimate.> I can't imagine <KWID> means "conclusively" as 100% definitive mathematical proof. 

Nov2118   AylerKupp: <<centralfiles> As was said earlier the engine tournaments serve almost no purpose here. If the black side deviated at all form our analysis the result is just about worthless.> Well, I certainly disagree. It may not be conclusive but it gives some indication, statistically speaking if you play enough games, of Black's drawing chances. If you keep an open mind and try different moves at different stages of the game, it will give you some idea of what moves work better than others as far as results are concerned. <If all lines the engines are evaluating as possibly winning <+.7 or higher for arguments sake> can be shown to actually peter out to a draw<less than +.5> with best play, then we are left with lines the engines are evaluating as drawish why would we assume that some +.41 line is actually winning? it's seems terribly unlikely. > You don't need to restrict the analyses to lines evaluated as possibly winning, best to look at all lines. And lines that originally did not seem to be winning could, depending on how deep you search, could indeed turn out to be winning. Again, not likely, but you just can't rule them out. 

Nov2118   AylerKupp: <<central files?> Lest we forget that ...h6 was actually played.> Sure, but afterwards it was not subjected to anywhere the depth of investigation that 19...Rf6 was. There were no champions for 19...h6 like there were for 19...Rf6. For all we know if 19...h6 had been subjected to the same level of analysis as 19...Rf6 it might have also shown that all lines petered out to a draw. And just because Ceri wasn't able to show a win for White, given the limited scope of his analysis, that again doesn't mean that the win wasn't there. So I don't think that this little fact was ignored, it was simply the fact that no one really cared a lot about showing a certain win for White, so the matter was dropped due to lack of interest. <Though in a practical sense I would agree black is somewhat busted even though 19...Rf6 is a draw.> Ha! You and <kwid> can keep on insisting that's the case until the cows come home but that doesn't make it a fact. Given the limited number of lines that have been analyzed compared to the number of reasonably alternative lines there is no conclusive evidence as far as I'm concerned that 19...Rf6 leads to a draw or, for that matter, that it's superior to 19...h6 as far as providing Black with the best practical chances for a draw. 19...h6 has simply not been investigated anywhere as thoroughly as 19...Rf6 by anyone who has the same motivation as you and <kwid> have to insist that 19...Rf6 leads to a draw. 

Nov2118   AylerKupp: <<I can't imagine <KWID> means "conclusively" as 100% definitive mathematical proof.> Me neither, but that's a question to ask <kwid> as to what he meant. I personally would not expect a 100% definite mathematical proof but only that the conclusion (whatever that is) is statistically significant. The most typical answer to what that means is a 95% confidence level that the result was not due to chance; i.e. a 5% or ± 2.5% that it could be. Exactly what that means in this case, if anything at all, I'm not sure. Confidence levels are typically used when the data (population) that you are looking at is Normally distributed and you sample that population at random. And I have not been able to come up with a was to cast situations like this into a situation like that. Clearly the analyses will not be selected at random although, if you have enough analyses, they could theoretically be. And I don't know if the analysis results can be considered Normally distributed since there are only 3 of them; White wins, White loses, or the game is a draw. So, to be frank, I don't know how to use the term "Confidence Level" in this situation other than intuitively, although I would not require that 100% of a "significant" number of analyses indicate that the result was a draw to accept that hypothesis. As a reminder, I'll be out of town for a few days so my ability to respond will be limited. So don't feel that I have lost interest if I don't respond to anyone's posts in a timely manner. I'll be taking a probability book with me (no joke!) so maybe by the time I come back I'll a better ideas of how to deal with the problem. I know, I have to get a life. 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <AK><I know, I have to get a life.>
No No No...
Nobody wants to see you doing that... ;) 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <AylerKupp: <<central files?> Lest we forget that ...h6 was actually played.>
Sure, but afterwards it was not subjected to anywhere the depth of investigation that 19...Rf6 was. There were no champions for 19...h6 like there were for 19...Rf6. For all we know if 19...h6 had been subjected to the same level of analysis as 19...Rf6 it might have also shown that all lines petered out to a draw. And just because Ceri wasn't able to show a win for White, given the limited scope of his analysis, that again doesn't mean that the win wasn't there. So I don't think that this little fact was ignored, it was simply the fact that no one really cared a lot about showing a certain win for White, so the matter was dropped due to lack of interest.> Sounds to me like you may have been absent during the game it was analyzed quite extensively. Do you any possible improvements? 

Nov2118   AylerKupp: <centralfiles> Yes, I was absent for the greater part of the game. I glanced through the comments after the game and the number of analyses of 19...h6 did not strike me to be nearly as many as for 19...Rf6, particularly after the game ended. So I will review the posts once I get back home and compare their relative number and, if I can, their quality. 

Nov2118   kwid: <AylerKupp:> The arguments before us as I see it should be framed as : h6 was the losing move while Rf6 instead could have led to a forced draw.
You keep insisting that this claim is based on unsubstantiated proof or high degree of uncertainty. Well than challenge me with my cards open on the table: 19.Nb5 < Rf6 > 20.Rb1 Kd8 21.Qd5 Bd7 22.Red1 g6 23.Ne4 Rf5 24.Qd3 Rxb5 25.Rxb5 Kc7 26.Qxd6+ Qxd6 27.Nxd6 Rf8 28.Be2 a6 29.Rb2 Rxf4 30.Nxb7 Rf2 31.Nd6 Ne5 32.Ne4 Rf4 33.Ng5 h6 34.Nf3 Nxf3 35.Bxf3 Bb5 36.Rb4 Rc4 37.a4 [37.Rdb1 Bc5 38.Rxc4 Bxc4 39.Re1 Kd6 40.a4 a5 41.g3 h5 42.Kg2 Bb3 43.Rb1 Bc2 44.Rb2 Bf5 45.Rb8 Kc7 46.Rb7+ Kd6 47.Rb2 Bd7 48.h4 Bxa4 49.Ra2 Bb5 50.Rxa5 Bd3 51.Ra4 Ke5 52.Ra5 Kd6 53.Ra8 Ke6 54.g4 hxg4 55.Bxg4+ Ke5 56.Ra5 Kd6 57.Bf3 Bc4 58.Kg3 e2 59.Ra1 Be3 60.Bxe2 Bxe2 61.Re1 g5 62.Rxe2 gxh4+ 63.Kxh4] 37...Rxb4 38.cxb4 Bxa4 39.Rc1+ Kd6 40.Be2 Bb5 41.Bxb5 axb5 42.g3 Bd4 43.Kg2 Bb2 44.Rc8 Ba3 45.Rd8+ Ke6 46.Re8+ Kf6 47.Rxe3 Bxb4 48.Rb3 Bc5 49.Rxb5 Bd4 50.Kf3 h5 51.Kf4 Bc3 52.Rb6+ Kg7 53.Rd6 Bb2 54.Rb6 Bc3 

Nov2118   kwid: Well I just saw a computer analysis from this game a minute ago and thus looked at my data with Rf6 followed by Qd3 as shown at this board. Here is part of my assessment of Qd3: [Event "Traxler Bxf7+/Bc4/b4"]
[Site "web"]
[Date "2018.11.21"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Theory"]
[Black "Analysis 19...Rf6 20.Qd3"]
[Result "1/21/2"]
[ECO "C57"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 $2 5. Bxf7+ Ke7 6. Bc4 Rf8 7. OO Qe8
8. b4 Bxb4 9. c3 Ba5 10. d4 d6 11. f4 Bb6 12. Kh1 exd4 13. e5 $1 Ng4 14. exd6+
cxd6 15. h3 Ne3 16. Re1 Kd7 17. Bxe3 dxe3 18. Na3 Qe7 19. Nb5 Rf6 20. Qd3 Kd8
21. Rad1 (21. Ne4 Bf5 22. Nbxd6 Kc7 23. Nxf5 Rxf5 24. Ng5 Rf6 25. Qxh7 Rd8 26.
Rad1 Kb8 27. g3 Rfd6 28. Rxd6 Qxd6 29. Ne4 Qd7 30. Kg2 Na5 31. Be2 Qd5 32. h4
Nc4 33. Kh3 Qd7+ 34. Kh2 Nd2 35. Ng5 Rc8 36. Rc1 a6 37. Qg6 Ka7 38. Qe6 Qd8 39.
c4 Rc6 40. Qf5 Bc5 41. Nf7 Qd4 42. Rc2 Rc7 43. Ne5 Bd6 44. Nf3 Nxf3+ 45. Bxf3
Rxc4 46. Rxc4 Qxc4 47. Qd7 Qc7 48. Qxc7 Bxc7 49. Kg2 b5 50. Be4 a5 51. h5 Bb6
52. Kf3 Kb8 53. g4 Kc8 54. f5 Bd8 55. Kxe3 Bg5+ 56. Kd4 b4 57. Kc5 Kd7 58. Kb5
Bd8 59. f6 Bxf6 60. Kxa5 Be7 61. Ka4 Ke6 62. g5 Ke5 63. g6 Kf6 64. Bf3 Kf5 65.
Kb3 Bd6 66. Be2 Kg5 67. Kc4 Kf6 68. Kb5 Kg5 69. Bd1 Kf6 70. Bc2 Kg5 71. Kc6 Bf8
72. Bd1 Kf6 73. Kd5 Be7 74. Kc4 Bd6 75. Be2 Bf8 76. Kb5 Bd6 77. Kc6 Bf8 78. Bd1
Be7 79. Kd5 ½½) 21... a6 22. Nxd6 Kc7 23. Nge4 (23. Nxc8 Rxc8 24. Qxh7 Kb8
25. Qb1 Na5 26. Bf1 Nc4 27. Qb3 Qc7 28. Bxc4 Qxc4 29. Qxc4 Rxc4 30. g3 Rfc6 31.
Rd3 Rxc3 32. Rxc3 Rxc3 33. Re2 Kc7 34. Kg2 Kc6 35. Kf3 Kd5 36. f5 Rc1 37. g4
Rf1+ 38. Kg2 Rc1 39. Kf3 ½½) 23... Rh6 24. Rb1 Ba7 25. Red1 (25. Nxc8 Rxc8
26. Bd5 Rd8 27. Re2 Qa3 28. Reb2 b5 29. Rb3 Qf8 30. c4 Qf5 31. Qf1 Rxd5 32. Ng3
e2 33. Qxe2 Rxh3+ 34. gxh3 Qxh3+ 35. Qh2 Qxh2+ 36. Kxh2 Rd2+ 37. Kh3 b4 38. a3
a5 39. axb4 axb4 40. Kg4 Bd4 41. Rh1 h6 42. Ne4 Rc2 43. Rd3 Rxc4 44. Rh5 Be5
45. Kf3 Nd4+ 46. Kg4 Nc6) 25... Rb8 26. Nxc8 Rxc8 27. Bd5 Rd8 28. Rb2 (28. Kh2
b5 29. a4 Qh4 30. Qf1 Qh5 31. Ng3 e2 32. Qxe2 Qxe2 33. Nxe2 Rhd6 34. Bb3 bxa4
35. Bxa4 Rd2 36. Ng3 Rxd1 37. Rxd1 Rxd1 38. Bxd1 a5 39. Ne4 Ne7 40. Ba4 Nd5 41.
Kg3 Nb6 42. Be8 a4 43. Bf7 Nc8 44. Kf3 Nd6 45. Ba2 Nxe4 46. Kxe4 Bf2 47. Bb1 h5
48. g4 Be1 49. Kd3 hxg4 50. hxg4 Kd6 51. Kc4 Bd2 52. f5 Ke5 53. Bc2 a3 54. Kb3
a2 55. Kxa2 Bxc3 56. Kb3 Bd2 ½½) 28... Rd7 29. Kh2 b5 30. a4 (30. Ng3 Qf8
31. Qe4 Qe7 32. Qf3 Rf6 33. Qg4 g6 34. Bxc6 Rxc6 35. a4 h5 36. Qxd7+ Qxd7 37.
Rxd7+ Kxd7 38. axb5 axb5 39. Rxb5 Rxc3 40. Rb7+ Rc7 41. Rxc7+ Kxc7 42. Ne2 h4
43. g4 hxg3+ 44. Kxg3 Kc6 45. Kf3 Kd5 46. Ng3 Kc4 47. f5 gxf5 48. Nxf5 Kd3 49.
Nxe3 Bxe3 50. Kg2 ½½) 30... Ne5 31. fxe5 Qxe5+ 32. Ng3 Rhd6 33. axb5 Qxd5
34. Qxd5 Rxd5 35. Rxd5 Rxd5 36. bxa6 Bb6 37. Re2 Kc6 38. Re1 Ra5 39. Nf1 Re5
40. Kg3 e2 41. Nd2 Re8 42. Nc4 Ba7 43. Nd2 h5 44. h4 Re3+ 45. Kf2 Re6+ 46. Kg3
Kd5 47. Kf3 Re3+ 48. Kf2 Re7+ 49. Kg3 Re8 50. Kf3 Re3+ 1/21/2 

Nov2118   centralfiles: <Kwid> I'm afraid we might just have to agree to disagree with <AK> here. We don't seem to be making much progress convincing him of the merits of 19...Rf6. Did you ever get a chance to do a deep analysis of 9...h6!?
I haven't spent much time on it but I'm not convinced of its merits at this point. Also I never quite did get over 8...Bb6 9.a4 a6 Which i still think is probably adequate for black and much more "fun" <some aggressive double edged lines> than 8...Bxb4 though you never agreed with me on that one. You supplied positions where white was winning but i found black avoids those positions with best play. All this is a bit silly though I was replying to the variations you posted as reasons to avoid 8...Bb6 and simply did not realize the strength of 8.b5! which might be just as hard for black as game continuation
I.e.
<Random Visitor>
<6...Rf8 7.00 Qe8 8.b4> <52/63 +1.09 8. ... Bb6 9.b5 Na5 10.Be2 d6 11.Nc3 Bd4 12.Nf3 Bxc3 13.dxc3 b6 14.Nd2 Kf7 15.Nb3 Nb7 16.Bd3 Kg8 17.a4 Bg4 18.f3 Bd7> 

Nov2118   kwid: Yes h6 was a must for us.
<Since we have no h6 voters but me I have to emphasis that moving our bishop twice just gives the game away.
I am not implying that we could win against a sound move order which we should expect with RV's lines as a guidance.But with h6! and not Ba5? or Bc5? we will have a fighting chance to survive and deny white for being credited to come up with the Traxler refutation line.> 



< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 139 OF 140 ·
Later Kibitzing> 


