TalkChess.com

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:25 pm**

I know chess engines are very strong at tactics and in open positions.

Can you recommend any commercial or free engines which are strong in playing:

- closed positions?

and/or

- positional/exchange sacrifices for positional compensation only?

Thanks to all those who will answer.

Ciao (it means "bye" in italian language) from Italy.

Davide

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:30 pm**

Mic Moc wrote:I know chess engines are very strong at tactics and in open positions.

Can you recommend any commercial or free engines which are strong in playing:

- closed positions?

and/or

- positional/exchange sacrifices for positional compensation only?

Thanks to all those who will answer.

Ciao (it means "bye" in italian language) from Italy.

Davide

Most of the top engines are happy to sac the exchange or give up a pawn for positional considerations, but closed positions are still an achilles heel.

Regards, Graham.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:07 pm**

Graham Banks wrote:
Mic Moc wrote:I know chess engines are very strong at tactics and in open positions.

Can you recommend any commercial or free engines which are strong in playing:

- closed positions?

and/or

- positional/exchange sacrifices for positional compensation only?

Thanks to all those who will answer.

Ciao (it means "bye" in italian language) from Italy.

Davide
Most of the top engines are happy to sac the exchange or give up a pawn for positional considerations, but closed positions are still an achilles heel.

Regards, Graham.

Top engines are sometimes willing to sac a full exchange for the "positional consideration" of weakening their opponents king position, but I suspect they often see through brute calculation that they are getting a very serious king attack. I don't recall any examples of them being willing to do so for more general positional considerations not involving a king attack (unless they also get at least a pawn back as partial material compensation). Can you cite an example of an engine and position that does not involve king hunts, sham sacrifices or partial material compensation?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:14 pm**

smirobth wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
Mic Moc wrote:I know chess engines are very strong at tactics and in open positions.

Can you recommend any commercial or free engines which are strong in playing:

- closed positions?

and/or

- positional/exchange sacrifices for positional compensation only?

Thanks to all those who will answer.

Ciao (it means "bye" in italian language) from Italy.

Davide
Most of the top engines are happy to sac the exchange or give up a pawn for positional considerations, but closed positions are still an achilles heel.

Regards, Graham.
Top engines are sometimes willing to sac a full exchange for the "positional consideration" of weakening their opponents king position, but I suspect they often see through brute calculation that they are getting a very serious king attack. I don't recall any examples of them being willing to do so for more general positional considerations not involving a king attack (unless they also get at least a pawn back as partial material compensation). Can you cite an example of an engine and position that does not involve king hunts, sham sacrifices or partial material compensation?

Can't show you specific examples without spending a lot of time hunting for them, but I stand by what I've said.
It would be good to hear the opinions of others also.

Regards, Graham.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:19 pm**

Mic Moc wrote:I know chess engines are very strong at tactics and in open positions.

Can you recommend any commercial or free engines which are strong in playing:

- closed positions?

and/or

- positional/exchange sacrifices for positional compensation only?

Thanks to all those who will answer.

Ciao (it means "bye" in italian language) from Italy.

Davide

None of the programs will be as strong in closed positions as open ones. But all of them will still be stronger than most humans in most cases of closed positions. Hiarcs seems to me to be more willing to enter closed positions than most other programs, but I am not sure that makes it any stronger at actually playing them.

I don't know of any programs that will play a purely positional exchange sacrifice (without a pawn for compensation) unless they can clearly calculate a strong king attack. However such an attack might look purely positional to a human.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:38 pm**

Graham Banks wrote:
smirobth wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
Mic Moc wrote:I know chess engines are very strong at tactics and in open positions.

Can you recommend any commercial or free engines which are strong in playing:

- closed positions?

and/or

- positional/exchange sacrifices for positional compensation only?

Thanks to all those who will answer.

Ciao (it means "bye" in italian language) from Italy.

Davide
Most of the top engines are happy to sac the exchange or give up a pawn for positional considerations, but closed positions are still an achilles heel.

Regards, Graham.
Top engines are sometimes willing to sac a full exchange for the "positional consideration" of weakening their opponents king position, but I suspect they often see through brute calculation that they are getting a very serious king attack. I don't recall any examples of them being willing to do so for more general positional considerations not involving a king attack (unless they also get at least a pawn back as partial material compensation). Can you cite an example of an engine and position that does not involve king hunts, sham sacrifices or partial material compensation?
Can't show you specific examples without spending a lot of time hunting for them, but I stand by what I've said.
It would be good to hear the opinions of others also.

Regards, Graham.

I looked for examples four or so years ago and couldn't find any. The only types of examples I was able to find were like this one:
[D]3q1rk1/pp1bppbp/3p2pB/8/2rNn1P1/2N1QP2/PPP5/2KR3R b - - 0 17 bm Rxc3!
Programs have no trouble finding the sac, but of course it is for king attack purposes. On the other hand nothing stands still in this field and perhaps programs will now make purely positional exchange sacs that don't involve king attacks. On the other, other hand; many of the reasons purely positional exchange sacs are still hard for computers is that they involve permanent structural features that are in some respects similar to fortresses. On the other, other, other hand; not all exchange sacs that have been recommended in the literature are sound. It is an interesting topic. I too will be interested to hear the opinions of others; especially if someone can come up with a concrete example.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:20 am**

Graham Banks wrote:
Can't show you specific examples without spending a lot of time hunting for them, but I stand by what I've said.
It would be good to hear the opinions of others also.

I remember at least 3-4 times Junior, at least 2 times Shredder and Rybka and at least 1-2 times from Hiarcs, The King, Fritz where these engines sacrificed the exchange, without winning a Pawn and not gaining any immediate King attack.
The best was an amazing example that i don't remember which engine played it and sacrificed its 2 Rooks for 2 Knights only. To obtain a strong passed Pawn with a closed position where the 2 Knights outplayed the 2 Rooks in a lengthy game. Opponent thought it is winning but....

I have saved all these but it's damn difficult to find these examples in the millions databases with millions games i have....

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:19 am**

smirobth wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
smirobth wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
Mic Moc wrote:I know chess engines are very strong at tactics and in open positions.

Can you recommend any commercial or free engines which are strong in playing:

- closed positions?

and/or

- positional/exchange sacrifices for positional compensation only?

Thanks to all those who will answer.

Ciao (it means "bye" in italian language) from Italy.

Davide
Most of the top engines are happy to sac the exchange or give up a pawn for positional considerations, but closed positions are still an achilles heel.

Regards, Graham.
Top engines are sometimes willing to sac a full exchange for the "positional consideration" of weakening their opponents king position, but I suspect they often see through brute calculation that they are getting a very serious king attack. I don't recall any examples of them being willing to do so for more general positional considerations not involving a king attack (unless they also get at least a pawn back as partial material compensation). Can you cite an example of an engine and position that does not involve king hunts, sham sacrifices or partial material compensation?
Can't show you specific examples without spending a lot of time hunting for them, but I stand by what I've said.
It would be good to hear the opinions of others also.

Regards, Graham.
I looked for examples four or so years ago and couldn't find any. The only types of examples I was able to find were like this one:
[D]3q1rk1/pp1bppbp/3p2pB/8/2rNn1P1/2N1QP2/PPP5/2KR3R b - - 0 17 bm Rxc3!
Programs have no trouble finding the sac, but of course it is for king attack purposes. On the other hand nothing stands still in this field and perhaps programs will now make purely positional exchange sacs that don't involve king attacks. On the other, other hand; many of the reasons purely positional exchange sacs are still hard for computers is that they involve permanent structural features that are in some respects similar to fortresses. On the other, other, other hand; not all exchange sacs that have been recommended in the literature are sound. It is an interesting topic. I too will be interested to hear the opinions of others; especially if someone can come up with a concrete example.

There are programs that will sacrifice the Rook in WAC.230 (which is the only move with winning chances, even though Alex Szabo showed that it might not win):
[d]2b5/1r6/2kBp1p1/p2pP1P1/2pP4/1pP3K1/1R3P2/8 b - - bm Rb4; id "WAC.230";

Perhaps even more amazing is that they also see Alex Szabo's refutation (even though it takes quite a while for the score to start dropping):
[d]2b5/8/4p1p1/1k1pP1P1/p2P4/Bpp3K1/1R3P2/8 w - - bm Re2; id "WAC.230 after Rb4 cxb4 a4 b5+ Kxb5 Ba3 c3"; c0 "drawish?";

Code: Select all


Analysis from e&#58;\wac230.epd   
1/7/2008 5&#58;57&#58;30 PM Level&#58; 385 Seconds
Analyzing engine&#58; Hiarcs11.2SPUCI

1&#41; Rb4; id "WAC.230";   
    Searching move&#58; Rb7-b4
    Best move &#40;Hiarcs11.2SPUCI&#41;&#58; Rb7-b4
    identical moves! Found in&#58; 00&#58;48
    13/22	00&#58;01	     314.155	542.582	+1.87	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 f2f3 Rh7f7 Kg3g4
    13/22	00&#58;01	     366.535	544.628	+1.87	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 f2f3 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Kc6b5 Kf4g4
    14/28	00&#58;01	     609.534	533.742	+1.90	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 f2f3 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Rh5h2 Ba3b2 Kc6b5 Bb2a3 Rh2c2 Ba3b2
    15/28	00&#58;02	     928.772	555.153	+1.90	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 Ba3b4 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Rh5h4+ Kf4g3 Rh4h8 Kg3f4
    16/29	00&#58;03	   1.690.300	546.138	+1.92	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 Ba3b4 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Rh5h4+ Kf4g3 Rh4h8 Kg3f4 Rh8h5 f2f3 Rh5h2 Kf4e3 Rh2g2 Bb4e7 Kc6d7
    17/37	00&#58;04	   2.228.722	550.573	+1.92	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 Ba3b4 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Rh5h4+ Kf4g3 Rh4h8 Kg3f4 Rh8h5 f2f3 Rh5h2 Bb4a3 Rh2h4+ Kf4e3 Rh4h5
    18/37	00&#58;06	   3.112.746	564.209	+1.92	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 Ba3b4 Rh7h5 Kg3g4 Kc6b5 Bb4a3 Rh5h8 Kg4f4
    19/37	00&#58;08	   4.433.598	566.304	+1.92	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 Ba3b4 Rh7h5 Kg3g4 Rh5h2 Kg4g3 Rh2h8 Bb4a3
    20/37	00&#58;12	   6.561.623	567.418	+1.92	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 Ba3b4 Rh7h5 Kg3g4 Rh5h2 Kg4g3 Rh2h8 Bb4a3 Rh8h5 Kg3g4 Kc6b5 Kg4f4 Rh5h3 f2f3 Kb5c6
    21/37	00&#58;17	   9.569.765	572.902	+1.92	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 a5a4 Bd6a3 Bc8b7 Ba3b4 Rh7h5 Kg3g4 Rh5h2 Kg4g3 Rh2h8 Bb4d6 Rh8h5 Kg3g4
    21/43	00&#58;48	  24.012.812	504.195	+1.92	Rb7b4
    21/43	01&#58;18	  42.129.993	539.795	+2.16	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7
    22/45+	02&#58;28	  76.350.265	518.447	+2.41	Rb7b4
    22/45	02&#58;38	  83.051.327	526.677	+2.41	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7 Re2h2
    23/47	04&#58;57	 152.879.613	515.775	+2.43	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7 Re2h2 d5d4 Kg3f4 Bd7c6 Kf4e5 Kd3c4 Ke5f6 d4d3
   1/7/2008 6&#58;03&#58;58 PM, Time for this analysis&#58; 00&#58;06&#58;25, Rated time&#58; 00&#58;48

1 of 1 matching moves
1/7/2008 6&#58;03&#58;59 PM, Total time&#58; 12&#58;06&#58;29 AM
Rated time&#58; 00&#58;48 = 48 Seconds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis from e&#58;\wac230.epd   
1/7/2008 5&#58;57&#58;30 PM Level&#58; 385 Seconds
Analyzing engine&#58; Crafty-2014

1&#41; Rb4; id "WAC.230";   
    Searching move&#58; Rb7-b4
    Best move &#40;Crafty-2014&#41;&#58; Rb7-b4
    identical moves! Found in&#58; 00&#58;11
     11	00&#58;00	     458.159	1.908.995	-2.19	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Bc8d7 f2f3 Rh7h5 Bd6e7 Kc6b5 Rb1b2 a5a4 Kg3f4 Rh5h4+ Kf4g3
     11	00&#58;00	     486.522	1.801.933	-2.19	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Bc8d7 f2f3 Rh7h5 Bd6e7 Kc6b5 Rb1b2 a5a4 Kg3f4 Rh5h4+ Kf4g3
     12	00&#58;00	     665.969	1.849.913	-2.19	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Bc8d7 f2f3 Rh7h5 Bd6e7 Kc6b5 Rb1b2 a5a4 Kg3f4 Rh5h4+ Kf4g3 Rh4h1
     12	00&#58;00	     766.966	1.826.109	-2.19	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Bc8d7 f2f3 Rh7h5 Bd6e7 Kc6b5 Rb1b2 a5a4 Kg3f4 Rh5h4+ Kf4g3 Rh4h1
     13	00&#58;00	   1.418.254	1.841.888	-2.19	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Bc8b7 Rb1b2 Rh5h1 Kf4e3 Kc6b5 f2f3 Rh1c1 Ke3d2 Rc1h1
     13	00&#58;00	   1.639.117	1.841.704	-2.19	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Bc8b7 Rb1b2 Rh5h1 Kf4e3 Kc6b5 f2f3 Rh1c1 Ke3d2 Rc1h1
     14	00&#58;01	   2.385.058	1.877.998	-2.18	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Bc8b7 Rb1b2 Rh5h1 Kf4e3 Rh1h2 Ke3f4 Rh2h4+
     14	00&#58;01	   3.638.009	1.894.796	-2.18	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 Bc8b7 Rb1b2 Rh5h1 Kf4e3 Rh1h2 Ke3f4 Rh2h4+
     15	00&#58;02	   5.255.339	1.876.906	-2.18	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 a5a4 Bd6a3 Kc6b5 Kf4g4 Rh5h2 Rb1b2 Rh2h1 Ba3d6 Kb5c6 f2f3 Bc8d7
     15	00&#58;06	  11.411.645	1.825.863	-2.18	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Rh7h5 Kg3f4 a5a4 Bd6a3 Kc6b5 Kf4g4 Rh5h2 Rb1b2 Rh2h1 Ba3d6 Kb5c6 f2f3 Bc8d7
     16	00&#58;09	  17.439.656	1.885.368	-2.19	Rb7h7 Rb2b1 Bc8d7 Bd6a3 Kc6b5 f2f3 Kb5c6 Rb1b2 Rh7h1 Rb2h2 Rh1a1 Ba3b2 Ra1g1+ Kg3f4 a5a4 Rh2h8 Rg1f1
     16	00&#58;11	  22.065.078	2.005.916	-2.58	Rb7b4
     16	00&#58;13	  26.152.186	2.011.706	-2.72	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2b1 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 Rb1h1 Bc8d7 Ba3c5 b3b2 Bc5a3 Kc4xd4 Rh1b1 Kd4xe5 Ba3xb2 c3xb2 Rb1xb2
     16	00&#58;14	  27.739.336	1.981.381	-2.72	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2b1 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 Rb1h1 Bc8d7 Ba3c5 b3b2 Bc5a3 Kc4xd4 Rh1b1 Kd4xe5 Ba3xb2 c3xb2 Rb1xb2
     17	00&#58;20	  38.291.437	1.914.571	-3.04	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2b1 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 Kg3f4 Kc4xd4 Rb1c1 Kd4d3 Rc1d1+ Kd3c2 Rd1c1+ Kc2d2 f2f3 d5d4 Rc1h1
     17	00&#58;22	  42.640.834	1.938.219	-3.04	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2b1 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 Kg3f4 Kc4xd4 Rb1c1 Kd4d3 Rc1d1+ Kd3c2 Rd1c1+ Kc2d2 f2f3 d5d4 Rc1h1
     18	00&#58;27	  51.256.892	1.898.403	-2.83	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7 e7e8Q Bd7xe8 Re2xe8
     18	00&#58;34	  63.592.458	1.870.366	-2.83	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7 e7e8Q Bd7xe8 Re2xe8
     19	00&#58;42	  79.508.166	1.893.051	-2.83	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7 e7e8Q Bd7xe8 Re2xe8
     19	01&#58;03	 119.728.341	1.900.449	-2.83	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7 e7e8Q Bd7xe8 Re2xe8
     20	01&#58;25	 160.377.499	1.886.794	-3.21	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 Re2e1 d5d4 Re1d1+ Kd3c4 e6e7 Bc8d7 Kg3f4
     20	02&#58;01	 226.727.417	1.873.780	-3.21	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 Re2e1 d5d4 Re1d1+ Kd3c4 e6e7 Bc8d7 Kg3f4
     21	02&#58;34	 290.677.471	1.887.516	-2.86	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7 e7e8Q Bd7xe8 Re2xe8 d5d4 Kg3f4
     21	04&#58;57	 568.410.067	1.913.838	-2.86	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4d3 e6e7 Bc8d7 e7e8Q Bd7xe8 Re2xe8 d5d4 Kg3f4
     22	06&#58;04	 701.544.626	1.927.320	-2.92	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2e2 c4c3 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 Bc8a6 Re2e1 e6xf5 e5e6 Ba6b5 e6e7 Bb5e8 Kg3f4 Kd4d3 Re1d1+ Kd3c4 Rd1e1
   1/7/2008 6&#58;10&#58;41 PM, Time for this analysis&#58; 00&#58;06&#58;26, Rated time&#58; 00&#58;11

1 of 1 matching moves
1/7/2008 6&#58;10&#58;42 PM, Total time&#58; 12&#58;13&#58;11 AM
Rated time&#58; 00&#58;11 = 11 Seconds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis from e&#58;\wac230.epd   
1/7/2008 5&#58;57&#58;30 PM Level&#58; 385 Seconds
Analyzing engine&#58; ChessTiger2007UCI

1&#41; Rb4; id "WAC.230";   
    Searching move&#58; Rb7-b4
    Best move &#40;ChessTiger2007UCI&#41;&#58; Rb7-b4
    identical moves! Found in&#58; 00&#58;03
      2	00&#58;02	          79	3.950	+2.48	Kc6b5 Kg3f4 Kb5a4
      3	00&#58;02	         200	10.000	+2.48	Kc6b5 Kg3f4 Kb5a4
      4	00&#58;02	         684	34.200	+2.06	Kc6b5 Kg3f4 Rb7b6 Kf4e3 Rb6xd6 e5xd6
      4	00&#58;02	       1.049	52.450	+2.22	a5a4 Kg3f4 Rb7a7 Kf4e3 a4a3
      4	00&#58;02	       1.486	74.300	+2.47	Rb7f7 f2f4 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Kb5a4
      5	00&#58;02	       1.973	98.650	+2.47	Rb7f7 f2f4 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Kb5a4
      6	00&#58;02	       4.485	149.500	+2.30	Rb7f7 f2f4 Rf7d7 Bd6a3 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Kb5a4
      6	00&#58;02	       6.679	222.633	+2.43	Rb7d7 Bd6c5 Rd7f7 f2f4 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Kb5a4
      7	00&#58;02	       8.534	284.467	+2.43	Rb7d7 Bd6c5 Rd7f7 f2f4 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Kb5a4
      8	00&#58;02	      13.471	449.033	+2.29	Rb7d7 Bd6c5 Rd7f7 f2f4 Rf7h7 Bc5a3 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Kb5a4
      8	00&#58;02	      20.504	410.080	+2.43	Rb7f7 f2f4 Rf7h7 Rb2b1 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Rh7h3+ Kf3e2 Rh3xc3
      9	00&#58;02	      51.568	859.467	+2.28	Rb7f7 f2f3 a5a4 Bd6b4 Rf7b7 Bb4a3 Kc6b5 Kg3f4 Bc8d7
      9	00&#58;02	      57.998	724.975	+2.41	Rb7d7 Bd6c5 Rd7f7 f2f4 Rf7h7 Rb2b1 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Rh7h2
     10	00&#58;02	      70.451	782.789	+2.39	Rb7d7 Bd6c5 Rd7f7 f2f4 Rf7h7 Rb2b1 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Rh7h3+ Kf3e2 Rh3xc3
     11	00&#58;02	      91.183	828.936	+2.39	Rb7d7 Bd6c5 Rd7f7 f2f4 Rf7h7 Rb2b1 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Rh7h3+ Kf3e2 Rh3xc3
     12	00&#58;02	     191.899	1.009.995	+2.37	Rb7d7 Bd6c5 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Rd7h7 Kf3e3 Rh7h2 Rb2b1 Bc8d7 Ke3d2 Rh2xf2+ Kd2e3 Rf2g2
     13	00&#58;02	     259.805	1.129.587	+2.37	Rb7d7 Bd6c5 Kc6b5 Kg3f3 Rd7h7 Kf3e3 Rh7h2 Rb2b1 Bc8d7 Ke3d2 Rh2xf2+ Kd2e3 Rf2g2
     13	00&#58;03	     703.092	1.098.581	+2.91	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 Rb2b1 c4c3 Rb1c1 c3c2 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rc1xc2 b3xc2 Bd6a3 Kb5c4 Ba3b2 Kc4b4
     14	00&#58;04	   1.413.184	995.200	+3.32	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Rb2c2 b3xc2 Bd6a3 c4c3 Kg3f4 Kb5c4 Kf4e3 Kc4b3 Ba3c1 a4a3
     15	00&#58;04	   1.679.141	1.005.474	+3.22	Rb7b4 Kg3f4 Rb4a4 Kf4e3 Ra4a2 Rb2b1 a5a4 Rb1h1 a4a3 Rh1h8 Bc8d7 Rh8b8 b3b2 Bd6c5 Ra2a1 Rb8b6+ Kc6c7
     16	00&#58;05	   3.264.736	1.049.754	+3.61	Rb7b4 Kg3f4 Rb4a4 Rb2b1 Ra4a2 Rb1h1 Ra2xf2+ Kf4e3 Rf2c2 Rh1h7 Kc6b5 Rh7c7 Rc2xc3+ Ke3d2 b3b2 Rc7xc8 b2b1N+ Kd2d1 Kb5a4 Rc8e8 Rc3d3+ Kd1c2
     17	00&#58;07	   5.273.802	1.008.375	+3.69	Rb7b4 Kg3f4 Rb4a4 Rb2b1 Ra4a2 Rb1h1 Ra2xf2+ Kf4e3 Rf2c2 Rh1b1 Rc2xc3+ Ke3e2 Rc3c2+ Ke2e3 b3b2 Bd6c5 Kc6b5 Bc5d6 Kb5a4
     18	00&#58;10	   7.630.591	1.032.556	+3.10	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2b1 Kb5c4 Kg3f3 c3c2 Rb1c1 Kc4xd4 Rc1xc2 b3xc2 Kf3e2 Kd4c3 f2f4
     19	00&#58;12	   9.663.300	1.026.918	+3.48	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2b1 Kb5c4 Kg3f3 c3c2 Rb1c1 Bc8a6 Kf3e2 Kc4c3+ Ke2e1 Ba6d3 Rc1xc2+ Bd3xc2 Ba3c1 b3b2 Bc1d2+ Kc3xd4
     20	00&#58;13	  11.671.107	1.030.107	+3.08	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2b1 Kb5c4 Kg3f3 c3c2 Rb1c1 Kc4xd4 Rc1xc2 b3xc2 Kf3e2 Kd4c3 f2f4 Kc3b3 Ba3c1 a4a3
     21	00&#58;19	  17.972.285	1.041.872	+3.26	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 Kg3f2 Bc8a6 Re2b2 Kd4e4 Kf2e1 Ke4xf4 Ke1d1 Kf4xe5 Kd1c1 c3xb2+ Kc1xb2 Ke5d4
     22	00&#58;28	  27.784.867	1.060.491	+3.28	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 Kg3f2 Bc8a6 Re2b2 Kd4e4 Kf2e1 Ke4xf4 Ke1d1 c3xb2 Ba3xb2 Kf4xg5 Kd1d2 Kg5f4
     23	00&#58;45	  45.432.561	1.070.261	+3.46	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 Bc8a6 Re2e1 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4c4 Re1e2 c3c2 e6e7 Ba6b5 Re2xc2+ b3xc2 Kg3f3 d5d4
     24	00&#58;59	  61.231.912	1.082.218	+2.64	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 Bc8a6 Re2f2 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4e3 Rf2f3+ Ke3d2 Kg3f4 c3c2 e6e7 Ba6b5 Kf4e5 Kd2e2
     25	01&#58;48	 119.046.580	1.120.966	+2.64	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 Bc8a6 Re2f2 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4e3 Rf2f3+ Ke3d2 Kg3f4 c3c2 e6e7 Ba6b5 Kf4e5 Kd2e2
     26	04&#58;04	 274.280.702	1.132.830	+2.71	Rb7b4 c3xb4 a5a4 b4b5+ Kc6xb5 Bd6a3 c4c3 Rb2e2 Kb5c4 f2f4 Kc4xd4 f4f5 Bc8a6 Re2f2 e6xf5 e5e6 Kd4c4 Kg3f4 Ba6b5 e6e7 d5d4 Kf4e5 c3c2 Rf2f4 Kc4c3
   1/7/2008 6&#58;17&#58;15 PM, Time for this analysis&#58; 00&#58;06&#58;25, Rated time&#58; 00&#58;03

1 of 1 matching moves
1/7/2008 6&#58;17&#58;16 PM, Total time&#58; 12&#58;19&#58;46 AM
Rated time&#58; 00&#58;03 = 3 Seconds

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:10 pm**

Mic Moc wrote:I know chess engines are very strong at tactics and in open positions.

Can you recommend any commercial or free engines which are strong in playing:

- closed positions?

and/or

- positional/exchange sacrifices for positional compensation only?

Thanks to all those who will answer.

Ciao (it means "bye" in italian language)

Davide

Hi !

Be sure Hiarcs & Shredder are the strongest in this area. I tested a lot all the top engines in such kind of positions.Of course they are place for a lot of improvements , but.....let wait for 32 men TBs.

Junior understand very well the positional compensation , but........L. Kaufman works day & night

in Rybka benefits.

Regards,

Sylwy

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:59 pm**

May be a fresh example from last game of Kamsky--Shirov match would be useful:
[D]2r5/r2q1k1p/2pb2p1/P2pRp2/3P4/1N3P2/4Q1PP/R5K1 w - - 5 27 bm f4

here Kamsky played f4.

If this example is too easy for engines let's get back some moves earlier:
[D]2rq2k1/r4p1p/2p3p1/P2pPp2/1b1P4/1N3P2/2Q1R1PP/R5K1 w - - 3 23 bm e6

here Kamsky played e6.

Whole game:

[Event "World Chess Cup 2007"]
[Site "Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia"]
[Date "2007.12.16"]
[Round "74"]
[White "Kamsky, Gata"]
[Black "Shirov, Alexei"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B31"]
[WhiteElo "2714"]
[BlackElo "2739"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "2007.??.??"]
[WhiteTeam "США"]
[BlackTeam "Испания"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "USA"]
[BlackTeamCountry "ESP"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 Nf6 6. Re1 O-O 7. d4 d5 8. e5
Ne4 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Nbd2 Bf5 11. Nh4 e6 12. Nxf5 exf5 13. f3 cxd4 14. cxd4 Ng5
15. b4 a5 16. bxa5 Rxa5 17. Nb3 Ra7 18. Bxg5 Qxg5 19. Qc2 Rc8 20. a4 Bf8 21. a5
Bb4 22. Re2 Qd8 23. e6 fxe6 24. Rxe6 Qd7 25. Qe2 Kf7 26. Re5 Bd6 27. f4 Bxe5
28. fxe5 Qb7 29. Nc5 Qb4 30. e6+ Kg8 31. Rd1 Qxa5 32. e7 Re8 33. Qe6+ Kg7 34.
Qe5+ Kf7 35. Qe6+ 1/2-1/2

Regards,
Geno

TalkChess.com

engines & positional play

engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play

Re: engines & positional play