10 Oct 07
I saw this posted elsewhere and it wasn't answered. Though not the original poster, I thought it was interesting and decided to repost it here to see what kind of response it gets. Feel free to post evaluations by Fritz or other strong engines, too.
Who is winning after:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.o-o Nxb5 6.Nxb5 d6 7.d4 b6? 8.Bf4? Ba6? 9.Qd3 cxd4 10.Nfxd4 e5 11.Qc4 Bxb5
10 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsThere are definitely better moves for both sides....
I saw this posted elsewhere and it wasn't answered. Though not the original poster, I thought it was interesting and decided to repost it here to see what kind of response it gets. Feel free to post evaluations by Fritz or other strong engines, too.
Who is winning after:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.o-o Nxb5 6.Nxb5 d6 7.d4 b6? 8.Bf4? Ba6? 9.Qd3 cxd4 10.Nfxd4 e5 11.Qc4 Bxb5
however, given the moves you've shown, it looks about equal.
10 Oct 07
Originally posted by ih8sensI don't know if that assessment of the position is supposed to be based on a quick eyeballing by you, a thorough analysis by you, or a chess engine you used. Please specify. (As for the moves, you're right, they're crap, but I'm really trying to evaluate the soundness of ignoring the pawn-fork due to the notion that 11.Qc4 makes it irrelevant.)
There are definitely better moves for both sides....
however, given the moves you've shown, it looks about equal.
10 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsWhen the message was made, I had run my computer on it for about 5 minutes, and analyzed it personally for 2 or 3 minutes.
I don't know if that assessment of the position is supposed to be based on a quick eyeballing by you, a thorough analysis by you, or a chess engine you used. Please specify. (As for the moves, you're right, they're crap, but I'm really trying to evaluate the soundness of ignoring the pawn-fork due to the notion that 11.Qc4 makes it irrelevant.)
It's not the best way to play that opening... not even close, but from a strictly analytical position, the game is even enough that with perfect play it should draw.
10 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ih8sensThanks for the clarification. By the way, what software are you using to evaluate it?
When the message was made, I had run my computer on it for about 5 minutes, and analyzed it personally for 2 or 3 minutes.
It's not the best way to play that opening... not even close, but from a strictly analytical position, the game is even enough that with perfect play it should draw.
(Note: the move sequence doesn't come from any game on RHP or any ongoing game. According to the original poster, it came from a chess book whose author was making an academic point; the author is a chess writer and most of the moves originated in a student game. The writer suggested that White was wrong to be afraid of the pawn fork and offered an alternative line of play (which I reproduced here) from the ninth move onward.)
10 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsCrafty.
Thanks for the clarification. By the way, what software are you using to evaluate it?
(Note: the move sequence doesn't come from any game on RHP or any ongoing game. According to the original poster, it came from a chess book whose author was making an academic point; the author is a chess writer and most of the moves originated in a student game.)
10 Oct 07
Originally posted by ih8sensI'd like to see some variations, my Fritz 9 begs to differ: it gives white a winning advantage (+1.50).
When the message was made, I had run my computer on it for about 5 minutes, and analyzed it personally for 2 or 3 minutes.
It's not the best way to play that opening... not even close, but from a strictly analytical position, the game is even enough that with perfect play it should draw.
11 Oct 07
Originally posted by ih8sensFritz does not like 17. Qxa7 (+0.4) and wants to play 17. c4 (+1.2). But I think the position is very complicated and even fiddling around with the pieces a bit I only see good positions for white but it doesn't really flesh out. Haven't got the time to really dig deep into it, but I'm not convinced this should be a draw with best play from both sides.
12. Nxb5, Rc8
13. Qa4, Qd7
14. Be3, Nf6
15. f3, Be7
16. Rac1, 0-0
17. Qxa7, Qxb5
18. Qxe7, Rfd8
... Crafty 19.01 now gives white a slight, though not winning advantage. 0.3/pawn.
11 Oct 07
Originally posted by zzywWhat does Fritz 9 (and Crafty) say about 12.Nxb5 exf4 both in terms of point evaluation and variations?
Fritz does not like 17. Qxa7 (+0.4) and wants to play 17. c4 (+1.2). But I think the position is very complicated and even fiddling around with the pieces a bit I only see good positions for white but it doesn't really flesh out. Haven't got the time to really dig deep into it, but I'm not convinced this should be a draw with best play from both sides.
17 Oct 07
14. Nxd6 Nh6 15. Rad1!, threatening 16. Nf5+ Nxf5 17. exf5 and 18. Rfe1 and mate. Black must lose material to avoid mate, "best" according to Fritz is 15... g6 16. Nf5+ gxf5 17. Rxd8 Rxd8 18. Qc7+ Ke8 19. Qe5+ and white wins h8.
15. Nf5+ Nxf5 16. exf5 wins as well as black can only hold off mate by 16... Qd6, hanging a8.