|Golden Executive: <kutztown46><Stockfish agrees that 16. d5 would have been stronger. However, Stockfish contends that 16. Bf4 would have been strongest of all.|
click for larger view
Analysis by Stockfish 2.0.1 JA 64bit (30-ply):
1. = (0.24): 16.Bf4 cxd4 17.cxd4 Qb6 18.Rc1 d5 19.e5 Na5 20.Qa4 Qd8 21.Qc2 Nc6 22.Qd1 Nb6 23.Bd2 Nd7 24.Qb3 Qb8 25.Bf4 Qa7 26.Red1 Rac8 27.a3 Bd8 28.Qe3 Bc7 29.Bd3
2. = (0.20): 16.d5 exd5 17.Qxd5 Qc7 18.Bc4 Nde5 19.Nxe5 Nxe5 20.Rd1 g5 21.Be3 Bf6 22.Be2 Re6 23.b4 cxb4 24.cxb4 Ng6 25.Rac1 Qe7 26.Qd2 Rxe4 27.Bd3 Re6 28.Bxg6 fxg6 29.Rc2 Re8 30.a3 Qf7 31.Rdc1>
Just for curiousity, I ran "my" Stockfish and this is the result from <depth 6 to 34>:
Analysis by Stockfish 2.0.1 JA <32 bit> with <512 MB Hash Tables>
<16.Bd3> Qb6 17.Qb3 Qxb3 18.axb3 cxd4 19.Nxd4 Nxd4 20.cxd4
<= (0.08) Depth: 6/9 00:00:00 8kN>
<16.Bf4> cxd4 17.cxd4 Qb6 18.d5 exd5 19.exd5 Nce5 20.Rb1 Nxf3+ 21.Qxf3 Bh4 22.Be3 Qb4
<= (0.16) Depth: 8/14 00:00:00 29kN>
16.Bf4 Qb6 17.dxc5 Qxc5 18.Be3 Qa5 19.Qb3 Qc7 20.Rad1 Nde5 21.Bg2 Nxf3+ 22.Bxf3 Ne5 23.Be2 b5 24.a4 Nc4 25.axb5 axb5
= (0.16) Depth: 14/20 00:00:03 907kN
<16.d5> exd5 17.Qxd5 Qb6 18.Qb3 Qc7 19.Bf4 Nde5 20.Be2 Nxf3+ 21.Bxf3 g5 22.Be3 Ne5 23.Be2 Qc6 24.Qd5 Qxd5 25.exd5
<= (0.12) Depth: 15/19 00:00:06 1997kN>
<16.Be3> cxd4 17.cxd4 d5 18.exd5 exd5 19.a3 Nf6 20.Ne5 Qb6 21.b4 Bd6 22.Rc1 Bxe5 23.dxe5 d4 24.Rxc6 Qxc6 25.Bg2 Nd5 26.Qxd4 Rad8 27.Rd1
<= (-0.08) Depth: 18/23 00:00:15 8234kN>
<16.d5> exd5 17.Qxd5 Qb6 18.Rd1 Nf6 19.Qc4 Qc7 20.Bg2 Nd7 21.Qb3 Nde5 22.Qd5 Qb6 23.Nxe5 dxe5 24.Be3 Rad8 25.Qb3 Qc7 26.h4 b6
<= (0.16) Depth: 19/22 00:00:20 11604kN>
<16.d5> exd5 17.Qxd5 Qc7 18.a4 Nde5 19.Be2 Nxf3+ 20.Bxf3 Ne5 21.Bg2 g5 22.Be3 Bf6 23.Red1 Rad8 24.Ra2 Ng6 25.Ra3 Ne5 26.a5 Nc6 27.Rda1 Rc8 28.Ra4 Re5 29.Qd2 Qd8 30.b4 Re6 31.bxc5 dxc5
< = (0.24) Depth: 30/32 00:32:32 1351mN>
16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Nce5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.f4 Nd7 20.g5 Bf8 21.c4 Rb8 22.a4 Nb6 23.Bd2 Nc8 24.a5 Rxe1 25.Qxe1 Qd7 26.Qf2 Ne7 27.b4 cxb4 28.Bxb4 Nf5 29.Bd3 Re8 30.Re1 Rxe1+ 31.Qxe1 Qa4 32.Kg2 Nd4 33.Qc3 Nf5
(0.64) Depth: 32/36 01:29:19 3792mN
16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 Nce5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.f4 Nd7 20.g5 Bf8 21.c4 Rb8 22.a4 Nb6 23.Be3 Nc8 24.Qd2 Ne7 25.Kg2 Nf5 26.Bf2 Rxe1 27.Rxe1 Qd7 28.b3 Re8 29.Rxe8 Qxe8 30.Bd3 Be7 31.Qe1 Qd7 32.a5 Bd8 33.b4 cxb4 34.Qxb4 Qe7 35.Kh2 Qd7
(0.64) Depth: 33/40 01:49:27 4687mN
<16.d5> exd5 17.exd5 Nce5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.f4 Nd7 20.g5 Bf8 21.c4 Rb8 22.a4 Nb6 23.Be3 Nc8 24.Qd2 Ne7 25.Kg2 Nf5 26.Bf2 Rxe1 27.Rxe1 Qd7 28.b3 Re8 29.Rxe8 Qxe8 30.Bd3 Be7 31.Qe1 Qd7
< (0.64) Depth: 34/32 02:01:42 5192mN>
"My" Stockfish found <16.Bf4> at depths 8 to 14 and then never appeared again. So at depth <30/32> gives <= (0.24)> for <16.d5>, the same eval of <kutztown46>´s Stockfish for <16.Bf4>.
Weird engines !
I remember <AylerKupp> gave some explanations about different results between "his" Rybka and the Rybka of another member of the World Team vs NPogonina.
<kutztown46> just for fun, could you run "your" Stockfish up to depth 34 just to see how compares with "mine"?
<I reviewed the entire game with Stockfish, and white's 16th move seems to represent the single best place where either side could have greatly improved upon what was played>
<In conclusion, it was a fun game to play. Both sides played very well, and the biggest missed opportunity seemed to be white's 16th move.>
I definitely agree with you.