|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 19 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-20-06 | | noctiferus: <OhioChessFan, RandomVisitor> About Bg5.
I already posted these lines (maybe useful to recall them) Analysis by Shredder 10 after 18.Qd2 Ng4 (18 plycount starting after Ng4): 1. (+0.55): 19.Bg5 f6 20.Bf4 g5 (19...d5 20.Bxe7 Qxe7(+0.65)) (19...b5 20.axb6 Bd8(0.91)) (19...Rfc8 20.Qf4 f6(+1.04)) 2. (+0.54): 19.Bb6 Rae8 20.h3 (19...Bf6 20.Nd4 Bg7 (+0.56)) (19...Rfe8 20.Nd4 Ne5 (+0.63)) 3. (+0.09): 19.Bd4 gxf5 20.Rae1 (19...Rfe8 20.Bb6 h6(+0.10)) |
|
| Oct-20-06 | | Karpova: Some suggestions 8i already posted them on the main page): <Karpova: 18....Ng4 19.Bg5 f6 20.Bf4 g5 21.Qe2 Ne5 22.Bg3 Bb5 23.Rfd1 d5 24.Be5: fe 25.g4 Rae8 26.Qe5:Could 24.Be5: be an improvement over 24.Kh1 ? The point is that white gets a protected free pawn, takes away pressure from d3 and Kh1 is not necessary yet due to the Nb3 covering c5 (26.Qe5: Bc5+? 27.Nc5: Re5: 27.Nd7:)>
<Karpova: 18....Ng4 19.Bg5 f6 20.Bf4 g5 21.Qe2 Ne5 22.Bg3 Bb5 23.Rfd1 d5 24.Be5: fe 25.g4 Rae8 26.Qe5:I had a look at 25....Bd6 now
18....Ng4 19.Bg5 f6 20.Bf4 g5 21.Qe2 Ne5 22.Bg3 Bb5 23.Rfd1 d5 24.Be5: fe 25.g4 Bd6 26.Qe3 h6 27.Qh3 Kh7 28.Qh5 Qe8 29.Qe8: Be8: (to answer Nd5: with Bf7) 30.d4 and 30...e4 is met with 31.Nd5: (31...Bf7 32.Nf6+ Kg7 33.Ne4: Bb3: 34.Nd6: Bd1: 35.Rd1: and white has two pawns for the exchange. Could our chances to win be higher than his or is this one two double-edged?) This is, of course, just a suggestion.>
Take them with a grain of salt, of course. I have no strong prog available but maybe there's something useful in it. |
|
| Oct-20-06 | | noctiferus: <RandomVisitor>
I've run quick analysis on your Bg5 line(19ply, one variation only) checking if Shred10 finds possible good alternatives in your line. No, he has no better ideas. Let me go deeper. |
|
| Oct-20-06 | | noctiferus: <RandomVisitor>
20ply. No better lines.
Shred10 gives an alternative, same evaluation, with inversion of moves(22...Bb5) |
|
Oct-20-06
 | | OhioChessFan: <noctiferus> if you have the time, could you run 18...gxf5? I don't think that will happen, but we could use a little prep just in case. |
|
| Oct-20-06 | | noctiferus: <OhioChessFan>
Ok, now it's about 8.20 pm my local time.
You can expect a result 14 hours or so starting now.
Shredder10 deep analysis starting now (18 ply 2 main variations,1 secondary: not so deep, in order to get it in a reasonable time: tomorrow morning I must use my comp at full capacity for a Data Mining problem of one of my students).
Started now.
|
|
| Oct-20-06 | | noctiferus: <OhioChessFan>
Changed my mind. I started a "quick and dirty" broad analysis, just to see which are the reasonable moves. It turns out that, within the limits of this analysis, best are the most natural ones for a human.
In my opinion (patzer or half-patzer), unless GMAN is able to take out his hat a TTT (Tremendous Tactical Trick) he will not play this move:18 ply Shredder10 analysis:
1.  (1.94): 19.Bh6 Ng4
2. (1.45): 19.Nd4 f4 20.Bxf4
3. ± (1.31): 19.Bg5 Ng4 20.Nd4 Bxg5 21.Qxg5+ Kh8 22.Qxf5 Qxf5 23.Nxf5 Rad8 24.d4 Nf6 25.Rad1 d5 26.Rde1 Rfe8 27.Ne7 4. ± (1.07): 19.Rae1 Ng4 20.Nd4 Bf6 21.Nxf5 Rfe8 22.d4 d5 23.Re2 Nxe3 24.Nh6+ Kg7 25.Rxe3 Rxe3 26.Qxe3 Qe6 27.Nf5+ Kh8 28.Qh3 Rg8 5. ± (0.80): 19.Rad1 Kh8 20.Nd4 Rg8 21.g3 Ng4 22.Nxf5 Rg6 23.Ne4 Re8 24.Rde1 6. ² (0.63): 19.Rac1 Kh8 20.Nd4 Rg8 21.Nxc6 bxc6 22.Na4 Nd5 23.Bd4+ f6 24.Nc3 Nb4 25.Ne2 c5 26.Bc3 Nd5 27.Rce1 Rab8 28.Ng3 Nxc3 7. ² (0.61): 19.Rab1 Kh8 20.Nd4 Rg8 21.g3
8. ² (0.54): 19.Kh1 Kh8 20.Nd4 Rae8 21.Rac1 Rg8 22.Nxc6 bxc6 23.Na4 Ng4 24.Nb6 Qe6 25.Bd4+ Bf6 26.Bxf6+ Qxf6 27.Rxc6 Qe5 28.Qc3 Ne3 29.Rf2 9. ² (0.51): 19.Ne2 f4 20.Bxf4 Qg4 21.Ned4 Rfe8 22.Bh6 Bd7 23.Rf3 Qg6 24.Rg3 Ng4 25.h3 Bh4 26.Rxg4 Bxg4 27.hxg4 Rac8 28.Rf1 Qxg4 10. ² (0.41): 19.Bb6 Kh8 20.Nd4 Rg8 21.Nxc6 bxc6 22.Rae1 Ng4 23.Bd4+ Ne5 24.Qf4 f6 25.Qxf5 Qxf5 26.Rxf5 Rae8 27.Bxe5 fxe5 28.Rf7 Anyway, I'll start the analysis as in my previous post (best two lines), to look into possible variations. Next two lines, tomorrow evening, hoping I've been able to solve my student's problem without too much effort. |
|
| Oct-20-06 | | dr.roho: <ohiochessfan> I am not a good chess player so I have to ask one who is - Who is winning in the world vs AN match? Do we have a slight lead or are we about equal? Thanks in advance... |
|
| Oct-20-06 | | chessmoron: <ohiochessfan> Don't tell him. Let <dr.roho> wait till the end. The suspense, oh my! =D |
|
Oct-20-06
| | OhioChessFan: <dr.roho> My best estimate would be that the World has a slightly better position, that might lead to winning chances. With his experience with chess engines, GMAN would make us work a long time to actually win the game. <chessmoron> I really should point <dr.roho> to a good player. |
|
Oct-20-06
| | OhioChessFan: <RookFile> says: Thanks RandomVisitor! You know, your computer and mine are playing exactly the same moves, they just seem to differ in evaluation. I let mine run on this position all day (12 hours), and it is spitting out the same line we had this morning: 18. Qd2 Ng4 19. Bg5 f6 20. Bf4 g5 21. Qe2 Ne5 22. Bg3 Bb5 23. Rfd1 d5 24. Kh1 Qxf5 25. Nxb5 axb5 26. d4 Qg4 27. Qxb5 Qd7 (here your analysis stops, mine continues) 28. Qe2 Nc4 29. Nc5 Bxc5 |
|
Oct-20-06
| | OhioChessFan: <hyuyty222> says: Analysis by Fritz 9: 1. ± (1.48): 18. Qd2 Ng4 19. Bg5 f6 20. Bf4 Rac8 21. fxg6 hxg6 22. h3 Ne5 23. d4 Nf7 24. d5 Bb5 25. Rfe1 g5 26. Bg3 f5 27. Nd4 f4 28. Bf2 Ne5 29. Ncxb5 axb5 30. Ne6 Rf7 |
|
Oct-20-06
| | OhioChessFan: <Rookfile> responds to Rybka analysis by <RandomVisitor>: <RandomVisitor> <Rybka sees this sequence in the 18...g4 19.g5 line: (0.06): 19.Bg5 f6 20.Bf4 g5 21.Qe2 Ne5 22.Bg3 Bb5 23.Rfd1 d5 24.Nd4 Bc5 25.Bf2 Bxd4> How does it evaluate 24. Kh1, leading
to the line 24.Kh1 Qxf5 25. Nxb5 axb5 26. d4 Qg4 27. Qxb5 Qd7 28. Qe2 Nc4 29. Nc5 I was intrigued by this position this morning because if black plays 29....Bxc5 white can boast a 3 on 1 queenside pawn majority, although the b pawn needs to be mobilized. |
|
| Oct-21-06 | | noctiferus: Shredder10(single machine) deep analysis 19 ply, after 18,,, gxf5, two best lines (see my post some positions back) A . 19. Bh6 19... Ng4 20. Bxf8 Bxf8 21. Qg5+Bg7 22. h3 h6 23. Qxf5 Qxf5 24. Rxf5 Ne3 25. Rf2 Re8 26. Re1 1.93/19 A1 .23... Ne3 24. Qxd7 Bxd7 25. Rf3 Nc2 26. Rc1 1.95/19 B . 19. Nd4 f4 20. Rxf4 Ng4 21. Nf5 Ne5 22. Rf2 Kh8 23.Raf1 Ng4 24. Re2 Nxe3 25. Qxe3 2.02/19 In order to compare different analyses, I've run a broad analysis with Rybka 1.2n (18 ply) (it seems that on single processor machines, it is a bit stronger than 2.1o. See for it http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rat...). Results (Remember that is well known that Shredder's evaluation scale is more inflated than Rybka's): 1. ± (0.78): 19.Nd4 f4 20.Rxf4 Ng4 21.Nf5 Ne5 22.Qe2 Kh8 23.d4 Bg5 24.Rff1 Bxe3+ 25.Nxe3 Ng6 2. ² (0.70): 19.Bh6 Ng4 20.Bxf8 Bxf8 21.Qg5+ Bg7 22.Rxf5 Ne3 23.Rf2 Re8 24.Nd4 Qg4 25.Qxg4 Nxg4 3. ² (0.52): 19.Rae1 Ng4 20.Nd4 Bh4 21.Re2 Bf6 22.Nxf5 Rae8 23.Bd4 Bxd4+ 24.Nxd4 Rxe2 25.Ncxe2 f6 4. ² (0.46): 19.Rac1 Kh8 20.Nd4 Ng4 21.Nxf5 Nxe3 22.Qxe3 Bf6 23.Ne4 Bxe4 24.Qxe4 Bxb2 25.Rb1 Bc3 5. ² (0.37): 19.Rad1 Kh8 20.Nd4 Rg8 21.g3 Ng4 22.Nxf5 Rg6 23.Ne4 Re8 24.Bd4+ Ne5 25.Rde1 Qe6 6. ² (0.30): 19.Bg5 Kh8 20.Nd4 Rg8 21.Rxf5 Ng4 22.Re1 Bxg5 23.Rxg5 Ne5 24.Ne4 Bxe4 25.Rxe4 Qa4 7. ² (0.30): 19.g3 Ng4 20.Nd4 Nxe3 21.Qxe3 Bf6 22.Nxf5 Rae8 23.Qf4 Re6 24.Rae1 Rfe8 25.Rxe6 Rxe6 8. ² (0.29): 19.Bb6 Kh8 20.Nd4 Rg8 21.g3 Ng4 22.Nxf5 Bg5 23.Bd4+ f6 24.Qc2 Rac8 25.Rae1 Ne5 9. ² (0.26): 19.Rab1 Ng4 20.Nd4 Nxe3 21.Qxe3 Bf6 22.Nxf5 Rae8 23.Ne4 Be5 24.Qh6 Re6 25.Qh4 Bxe4 10. = (0.25): 19.Ne2 Ng4 20.Nbd4 Kh8 21.Nxc6 bxc6 22.Bd4+ Ne5 23.Ng3 Rg8 24.Nxf5 Rg6 25.Rae1 Bf6 Comment:
Basically, Rybka agrees on Shredder choices, with slight differences in preference orderings. The main difference is that in 19. Bh6 line, he prefers not to exchange queens. If needed, we'll have plenty of time to choose between. However, gxf5 seems to be a bad choice for black, so I don't believe GMAN will play this move. |
|
| Oct-21-06 | | noctiferus: Comment for chess engine addicts:
Rybka appears to be much slower than Shredder in analyzing positions, even
if his number of positions evaluation is smaller: seems that his performance evaluation is more efficient although computationally heavier. It leads to a confirmation of the fact that Vas Raijlich approached the problem from a very different point of view with respect to the other classical engines. |
|
Oct-21-06
| | OhioChessFan: <Boomie> says: In the 18...Ng4 19. Bb6 Rfe8 line, white may have an improvement with 25. Ra4.
18...Ng4 19. Bb6 Rfe8 20. Nd4 Bf8 21. Qf4 Ne5 22. Nxc6 bxc6 23. d4 Nd3 24. Qd2 Nb4 25. Ra4 Nd5 26. Nxd5 cxd5 27. Ra3 and black's position looks sick. |
|
| Oct-21-06 | | noctiferus: <OhioChessFan>
Done the same analysis with Toga 1.2.1a (approximately same strenght of Shredder10), and Fruit 2.2.1.
Same result, of course some difference in the chosen lines, but no engine is able to find anything good for black.
I think we can forget gxf5. |
|
Oct-21-06
| | OhioChessFan: <noctiferus> thanks for the input. We should keep the ideas in those lines in mind because they may come into play later. I think if we move our Bishop off the h6 diagonal, for example, it might make that move more playable. |
|
| Oct-21-06 | | noctiferus: <OhioChessFan>
ok. keeping files.
|
|
| Oct-21-06 | | twinlark: Hi. <Ohio>, would you like to take on 19.Bg5? The main thread is champing at the bit. |
|
Oct-21-06
| | OhioChessFan: ** Current position. White to move. **
click for larger view** Now discussing the proposed move 19. Bg5 ** |
|
| Oct-21-06 | | Dionyseus: 19.Bg5 Nh5 20.Nd4 d5 21.Bxe7 Qxe7 22.Nce2 so far following User: RandomVisitor 's analysis. Here, if black plays 22...Bd7, here's some Rybka analysis:
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 2.1q mp 32-bit :
23.g4 Ng7 24.f6 Qc5 25.Kg2 Ne6 26.Rac1 Qf8 27.Nxe6 Bxe6 28.h3 Rac8 29.Nd4 Bd7
= (0.25) Depth: 20 00:03:14 43396kN
And from this position, here's an extension of the analysis: 
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 2.1q mp 32-bit :
30.Rxc8 Bxc8 31.Re1 Bd7 32.Rxe8 Qxe8 33.Qf4 Qd8 34.Kg3 b6 35.Qd6 bxa5 36.Nc6 Qe8
² (0.48) Depth: 20 00:02:02 31038kN
And this is what our position looks like at the end of this analysis:
click for larger viewRybka seems to be happy with this position, currently scoring it at +0.62 at a depth of 20. |
|
Oct-21-06
| | OhioChessFan: Here are a few previously mentioned lines that I think are accurate transpositions. (I think)<Rookfile> says: Summary of the proposed 18. Bg5 lines.
Obviously 18. Bg5 is not going to win, but twinlark wanted this for posterity's sake.
C) 18.....Rfe8 19. Qd2 and now:
C1) 19...Ng4 20. f6 Bd8 21. h3 Qe6 22. hxg4 Qxb3 23. Bh4 Kh8 24. Ne4 Bxe4 25. dxe4 Qe6 26. Qh6 Rg8 27. Bg5 Rg8 28. Ra3 Qh5 29. Rh3 and white wins C2) 19.... Nh5 20. Nd4 with differences of opinion between slight edge and clear advantage for white. <Rookfile> responds to (I don't know): <Ok, so this is dumb, after 18. Bg5 Rfe8 19. Qd2 Nh5, we should expect to see the reply 20. f6! as has been analyzed in this entire thread.> Thorsson lated pointed out that 20...h6 neutralizes this. A better move is 20. Nd4 which is +0.69 according to Fritz. <Karpova> responds to <SamuelS>:
<18. Qd2 Rfe8 19. Bg5 Nh5 20. Nd4 d5 (is there a better move here?)> What about 20...Bg5: 21.Qg5: Re5 22.Qh4 Rae8 23.f6 h6 I think that this could be an improvement for black |
|
Oct-21-06
| | OhioChessFan: Here's a previous Rybka line.
26 ply
(0.22): 18...Rfe8 19.Bg5 Nh5 20.Nd4 d5 21.Bxe7 Qxe7 22.Nce2 Qe3+ 23.Qxe3 Rxe3 24.g4 Ng7 25.Ra3 |
|
| Oct-21-06 | | Dionyseus: After 18...Rfe8 19.Bg5 Nh5 20.Nd4 Bxg5 21.Qxg5 Re5, white should play 22.g4:
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 2.1q mp 32-bit :
22.g4 Ng7 23.Rf4 Rf8 24.Nxc6 bxc6 25.d4 Qa7 26.Qh4 gxf5 27.Kh1 Ree8 28.gxf5 f6
² (0.42) Depth: 21 00:19:17 264mN
|
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 19 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
rreusser/...