3 Champs Highlights

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: Perfect play

Post by Don » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:53 am

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Let me post here some flattering remarks about a game of Komodo, so that Don does not decide I am criticising engines, and especially Komodo all the way. I am appreciating Don's open-minded approach and, as he posts frequently in my threads, Komodo definitely deserves special treating. :D
There is no need to flatter me but I appreciate the thought!

I don't have any problems with you criticizing the play of Komodo - in fact I always pay attention to comments about Komodo as I'm eager to discover problems that I might be able to fix for an ELO improvement.

I was only pointing out that I take criticism of computer play with a grain of salt as it very often turns out that the computer is right and the human is wrong. But not always.

Do you realize that all the top players now use computers to check their analysis? I am not a very strong player but with the help of the computer I can analyze positions and find errors and such. I'm surprise you don't use them for checking variations - you really should. You don't have to agree with the computer but like a good adviser they are there to advise, not to dictate.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

An alternative solution

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:55 am

[D]r2qr1k1/2p1bpp1/p4n1p/2pp1P2/5BP1/2N2Q2/PPP1RP1P/R5K1 b - - 0 16

This is a critical position of the 62nd game, Houdini-Komodo.

Both engines currently think the game is perfectly equal, but Komodo now plays 16...d4 and, in less than a dozen moves already sees itself half a pawn down, not to mention Houdini's score. Of course, the move is very off target, as black is left with the semblance of double horizontally isolated pawns (c5 and c7, as the only pawn on adjacent file, d4, is in front of the more advanced double pawn), completely unnecessary bearing in mind that black actually has much better choices.

Although both engines think the position before d4 is fully even, I think black probably has an observable advantage, do not know if decisive.

The point is that the white double pawns on the king side are part of symmetrical pawn structures, meaning that those double pawns are a major liability, much bigger than a normal double pawn. The penalty might be somewhere twice the penalty for a normal double pawn, part of a group, and commensurate with the penalty for double horizontally isolated pawns. A further eval trick might consider that the penalty for those pawns is not due because one of them has already crossed the center line, but a further deeper look would ascertain that it is actually due, as those pawns have big difficulty to advance, because black is able to efficiently control all squares in front of them. This would mean that the pawn that gains space advantage (f5) exhibits just a semblance of importance and is there to stay out of job. Of course, one of the reasons for the excellent black piece control in front of those pawns is the good black pawn center, preventing enemy pieces from intervening.

Thus, I think black is much better here, and the exchange of the white knight for the black bishop on f5 earlier on has been wrong.

Increasing the advantage, however, is a different story, as tactical mistakes should be avoided. A plan including Qd7, c6 (or Bd6 first, depending on the white response), Bd6, exchanging the heavy pieces, seems a natural one to me, but also c4 might be considered in some lines. In this way, while the white pawn majority on the king side would not be felt at all, the black pawn majority on the queen side would, and this already swings the balance.

Another important thing to note is that the penalties for all weak pawns (double, isolated, etc.) should as a rule be increased with the presence of minor pieces on the board (as they are easier to exploit then, similarly to simple pawn endgames), but decreased with the presence of heavies (as those tend to level out existing weaknesses). Thus, the exchange of the heavy pieces would only favour black that has better pawn structure. An useful rule of thumb might be that for each heavy piece on the board weak pawns are scored down by a percentage point, while for each minor piece they are scored up by the same percentage point.

I know many will doubt the validity of what is written here, and the assessment of the position, as there might be some tactical details still to consider, but I think black is considerably better on the main diagram. In any case, whatever games I have played with this line with black, both against humans and engines, black has fared significantly better.

Any comments or additional engine output very much appreciated.

Best, Lyudmil

Will Singleton
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: The Pawn-eater

Post by Will Singleton » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:03 am

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:[D]1r2r1k1/1pn2p1p/2pb1qp1/p4p2/3P4/1QP3P1/PP3PBP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 17

This is a position from the 57th game of the tournament.

Stockfish has played very well the opening with white against Houdini, but now decides to attack and eat with the queen an enemy pawn far from where the main battle takes place. Stockfish plays now 17.Qa4, upon which Houdini replies with 17...f4, takes the initiative and builds up a devastating king attack.

I think Stockfish could easily keep some edge by playing 17.f4 itself instead, depriving black of any attacking opportunities and using its majority pawn on the queen side, when the time is favourable for that. I think playing 17.f4 is a must in this position, even if black did not threaten with a very menacing attack, because this move would be very helpful in the long term: it fixes (blocks) the most advanced black double pawn (f5) with an own pawn, and that is a serious advantage, long-term at that, that should be worth some 10-15cps. In this way the weakness of the double pawn becomes difficult or almost impossible to straighten, and that is always a positional asset. I think that whenever a real possibility to block with an own pawn the most advanced enemy double pawn exists, such a move should enjoy priority status, because a move or 2 later it could already not be playable, thus missing a valuable positional edge.

Of course, white might have been afraid that f4 would leave the e3 square undefended, but that is much less important in this particular case.

Any engines there willing to play 17.f4?

Best, Lyudmil
My little Amateur (slightly updated) will play f4. Not sure it's the best move, but at least it's human-like.

Code: Select all

setboard 1r2r1k1/1pn2p1p/2pb1qp1/p4p2/3P4/1QP3P1/PP3PBP/R1B2RK1 w - -
go
6 47 3 32588 Bd2 f4 Re1 f3 Bh3 Re2
6 68 6 49505 Qa4 Qg7 Qxa5 Re2 Qb6 Ne6
7 75 20 162465 Qa4 f4 Qxa5 Re2 Bf3 b6 Qa7
8 38 30 241011 Qa4 Ra8 Qb3 Rb8 Bd2 Re2 Bh6
8 54 39 310142 Bd2 f4 Re1 f3 Bh3 Re2 Be3 Nd5
9 82 57 455399 Bd2 f4 Re1 f3 Bh3 Re2 Be3 Nd5 Bh6
10 68 86 700350 Bd2 f4 Rd1 f3 Bh3 Re2 Re1 Ne6 Bh6
11 61 136 1134302 Bd2 f4 Rd1 f3 Bh3 Re2 Re1 b5
12 59 304 2606164 Bd2 f4 Rd1 f3 Bh3 Re2 Re1 b5 a4 Re8 axb5 cxb5
13 55 860 7572464 Bd2 f4 Re1 Ne6 Qb6 Qd8 Qxd8 Rxd8 Rd1 fxg3 fxg3 f5
13 78 1140 10235295 Qb6 f4 Qxa5 Re7 Bd2 Ra8 Qb6 f3 Bh3 Nd5 Qb3 Re8
14 84 3037 28284554 Qb6 Qe6 Bd2
15 55 4860 46815106 Qb6 Nb5
13 55 4860 46815107 Qb6
13 71 5596 53522452 f4 Ne6 Qa4 Bc7 Bd2 Re7 Re1 Re8 b4
14 76 7121 67807528 f4 Qe6 Bd2 Qxb3 axb3 Ra8 Re1 Ne6 Rd1 Nc7 c4 Ne6 Bc3
15 71 11628 110245503 f4 c5 d5 b5 Kh1 Re2
16 78 16549 154184265 f4 c5 d5 b5 Qd1 c4 Kh1 Bc5 a4 b4 Bd2 Qd6 cxb4 Bxb4 Rc1 Bxd2 Qxd2
17 76 26652 243362824 f4 c5 d5 b5 Qc2 c4 Kh1 Na6 Bd2 Nc5 b3 Re2 Re1 Re8 Rxe2 Rxe2 bxc4 bxc4

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: The Pawn-eater

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:01 pm

Thanks Will.

I remember playing with Amateur; the last version I played with was 2.4. It was not very strong then, but I know it is much better now.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Perfect play

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:13 pm

Don wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Let me post here some flattering remarks about a game of Komodo, so that Don does not decide I am criticising engines, and especially Komodo all the way. I am appreciating Don's open-minded approach and, as he posts frequently in my threads, Komodo definitely deserves special treating. :D
There is no need to flatter me but I appreciate the thought!

I don't have any problems with you criticizing the play of Komodo - in fact I always pay attention to comments about Komodo as I'm eager to discover problems that I might be able to fix for an ELO improvement.

I was only pointing out that I take criticism of computer play with a grain of salt as it very often turns out that the computer is right and the human is wrong. But not always.

Do you realize that all the top players now use computers to check their analysis? I am not a very strong player but with the help of the computer I can analyze positions and find errors and such. I'm surprise you don't use them for checking variations - you really should. You don't have to agree with the computer but like a good adviser they are there to advise, not to dictate.
Hi Don.
The above-mentioned Komodo game was really great.

Computers are excellent in helping you see a large variety of lines you would not suppose they would exist, and, very often, when I start losing a game, and the result is already clear, I will go back to the game with computer suggestions to see something different and intriguing. Many lines I would completely miss.

But, computers also misplay a wide variety of position types, and any human might take advantage of that. As with humans, human-engine struggle is about who is going to impose her playing style on the other party. Whoever does that will usually be favoured in some way. Therefore, I choose against computers strictly only lines they do not understand. But when I want to learn something, I start looking into engine lines.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: A bit sharper

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:21 pm

After looking a bit more carefully into the game, I will agree that my suggested continuation Ng4 is not sufficient, but probably also the whole sacrifice would prove insufficient. Black could have retained a small edge after the natural a5 instead of sacrificing. But it provided some food for thought.

I am grateful to iCE for its output that opened my eyes. It is always good to have some useful feedback. I would always appreciate a bit sharper comments, whenever those are substantiated by output/analysis.

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: Perfect play

Post by Don » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:41 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Don wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Let me post here some flattering remarks about a game of Komodo, so that Don does not decide I am criticising engines, and especially Komodo all the way. I am appreciating Don's open-minded approach and, as he posts frequently in my threads, Komodo definitely deserves special treating. :D
There is no need to flatter me but I appreciate the thought!

I don't have any problems with you criticizing the play of Komodo - in fact I always pay attention to comments about Komodo as I'm eager to discover problems that I might be able to fix for an ELO improvement.

I was only pointing out that I take criticism of computer play with a grain of salt as it very often turns out that the computer is right and the human is wrong. But not always.

Do you realize that all the top players now use computers to check their analysis? I am not a very strong player but with the help of the computer I can analyze positions and find errors and such. I'm surprise you don't use them for checking variations - you really should. You don't have to agree with the computer but like a good adviser they are there to advise, not to dictate.
Hi Don.
The above-mentioned Komodo game was really great.

Computers are excellent in helping you see a large variety of lines you would not suppose they would exist, and, very often, when I start losing a game, and the result is already clear, I will go back to the game with computer suggestions to see something different and intriguing. Many lines I would completely miss.

But, computers also misplay a wide variety of position types, and any human might take advantage of that. As with humans, human-engine struggle is about who is going to impose her playing style on the other party. Whoever does that will usually be favoured in some way. Therefore, I choose against computers strictly only lines they do not understand. But when I want to learn something, I start looking into engine lines.
But that's not how you have to use computers. When you see something that you think is the way to proceed just use the computer to see if there is a relatively simple refutation and it will save you a lot of time. Don't use it to dictate what move you should play. If it suggests a move that is interesting see if you can refute it! That is the best way to utilize computers.

Computers will find tactical errors in your analysis - but don't use them for telling you what you should play unless you can see for yourself that it's good.

Or do you simply fear that it will make you lazy? I think all the GM's are using computers in the way I am saying.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Perfect play

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:26 pm

Don wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Don wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Let me post here some flattering remarks about a game of Komodo, so that Don does not decide I am criticising engines, and especially Komodo all the way. I am appreciating Don's open-minded approach and, as he posts frequently in my threads, Komodo definitely deserves special treating. :D
There is no need to flatter me but I appreciate the thought!

I don't have any problems with you criticizing the play of Komodo - in fact I always pay attention to comments about Komodo as I'm eager to discover problems that I might be able to fix for an ELO improvement.

I was only pointing out that I take criticism of computer play with a grain of salt as it very often turns out that the computer is right and the human is wrong. But not always.

Do you realize that all the top players now use computers to check their analysis? I am not a very strong player but with the help of the computer I can analyze positions and find errors and such. I'm surprise you don't use them for checking variations - you really should. You don't have to agree with the computer but like a good adviser they are there to advise, not to dictate.
Hi Don.
The above-mentioned Komodo game was really great.

Computers are excellent in helping you see a large variety of lines you would not suppose they would exist, and, very often, when I start losing a game, and the result is already clear, I will go back to the game with computer suggestions to see something different and intriguing. Many lines I would completely miss.

But, computers also misplay a wide variety of position types, and any human might take advantage of that. As with humans, human-engine struggle is about who is going to impose her playing style on the other party. Whoever does that will usually be favoured in some way. Therefore, I choose against computers strictly only lines they do not understand. But when I want to learn something, I start looking into engine lines.
But that's not how you have to use computers. When you see something that you think is the way to proceed just use the computer to see if there is a relatively simple refutation and it will save you a lot of time. Don't use it to dictate what move you should play. If it suggests a move that is interesting see if you can refute it! That is the best way to utilize computers.

Computers will find tactical errors in your analysis - but don't use them for telling you what you should play unless you can see for yourself that it's good.

Or do you simply fear that it will make you lazy? I think all the GM's are using computers in the way I am saying.
Hi Don.

Thanks God I am not a grandmaster and I do not compete. My first care would be to avoid dull routine.
What is the use of computer utilisation, if all those grandmasters are unable to defeat top engines of today on big hardware? You say, humans should leave the supremacy to computers, but I do not agree. I think there is no reason at all that the human brain should be in any way deficient to engine strength, even if supported by vast hardware.

People just would not care to find their own way of play that would be menacing to computers, they would follow computer recommendations and the dull routine instead. I do not imagine a world where you are resigned that something is already indisputably better than you, and you give up all fight. This is not real life, but a surrogate of life.

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: Perfect play

Post by Don » Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:32 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: Hi Don.

Thanks God I am not a grandmaster and I do not compete. My first care would be to avoid dull routine.
What is the use of computer utilisation, if all those grandmasters are unable to defeat top engines of today on big hardware? You say, humans should leave the supremacy to computers, but I do not agree.
I didn't say that! Didn't you read what I just posted?

I basically said that you should do your own thinking and that computer could be relegated to the role of servant. It could simply do the grunt work while YOU do the creative thinking.

That is exactly how the top players use computers. Use them to double check your variations for obvious tactical blunders - etc ...


I think there is no reason at all that the human brain should be in any way deficient to engine strength, even if supported by vast hardware.

People just would not care to find their own way of play that would be menacing to computers, they would follow computer recommendations and the dull routine instead. I do not imagine a world where you are resigned that something is already indisputably better than you, and you give up all fight. This is not real life, but a surrogate of life.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Real joy

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:10 pm

The 6th game of the 3Champs was a real joy for me. I would award it all possible prizes, even if there might have been some mistakes on both parts. The game was a prolonged battle, and you could find in it unusual opening, interesting pawn structure, opposite-colour bishops, advance of passers, sharp attacks and counter-attacks, modernistic understanding of shelters with far advanced pawns, closed pawns chains, reminiscences of space advantage, good prophylactic moves, many vivid, picturesque tableaus, some shuffling, and, of course, a lot suspense!

I think this is how computer chess needs to proceed in the future, and it should have an awful lot of supporters.

Below the entire game:

[pgn][PlyCount "242"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[Source "K."]
[Event "3Champs/60+15"]
[Date "2013.08.19"]
[Round "2.3"]
[White "Houdini 3 Pro x64 sd12x8"]
[Black "Stockfish 180813 64 SSE4.2 x8"]
[Result "0-1"]
[EventDate "2013.08.18"]
[ECO "A01"]
[Annotator "0.24;0.30"]
[MLNrOfMoves "121"]
[MLFlags "000100"]


{Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2687W 0 @ 3.10GHz 3100 MHz W=25.1 plies; 17.755kN/s B=31.8 plies; 11.522kN/s}
1. b3 c5 2. Bb2 d5 3. e3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Qc7 5. Nf3 a6 6. Bxc6+
{[%eval 24,26] [%emt 0:02:01]} 6... Qxc6 {[%eval 30,28] [%emt 0:01:16]} 7. O-O
{(d3) [%eval 27,27] [%emt 0:00:36]} 7... Nf6 {[%eval 24,29] [%emt 0:03:21]} 8.
a4 {(d4) [%eval 29,26] [%emt 0:00:00]} 8... b6
{(g6) [%eval 12,30] [%emt 0:02:51]} 9. c4 {(d3) [%eval 25,25] [%emt 0:04:15]}
9... dxc4 {(e6) [%eval 0,30] [%emt 0:01:28]} 10. bxc4
{[%eval 12,27] [%emt 0:04:13]} 10... e6 {[%eval 4,32] [%emt 0:00:07]} 11. d3
{(Be5) [%eval 9,27] [%emt 0:05:16]} 11... Be7
{(Bb7) [%eval 0,31] [%emt 0:01:54]} 12. Ne5
{(Nbd2) [%eval 14,27] [%emt 0:02:04]} 12... Qc7 {[%eval 0,35] [%emt 0:02:22]}
13. f4 {(Nd2) [%eval 14,27] [%emt 0:00:15]} 13... Bb7
{[%eval 0,34] [%emt 0:05:05]} 14. Ra3 {(Nd2) [%eval 9,27] [%emt 0:00:00]} 14...
O-O {[%eval 0,33] [%emt 0:01:30]} 15. Rb3 {[%eval 3,27] [%emt 0:00:56]} 15...
Rad8 {(Nd7) [%eval 0,33] [%emt 0:02:43]} 16. Nd2 {[%eval 24,26] [%emt 0:01:24]}
16... Ne8 {(a5) [%eval 0,33] [%emt 0:07:11]} 17. a5
{[%eval 15,27] [%emt 0:02:27]} 17... bxa5 {[%eval 0,33] [%emt 0:00:00]} 18. Bc3
{[%eval 18,27] [%emt 0:01:13]} 18... Bf6 {(Bd6) [%eval 0,35] [%emt 0:00:25]} 19.
Ra3 {(Qb1) [%eval 10,26] [%emt 0:01:32]} 19... Bxe5
{[%eval -6,30] [%emt 0:01:29]} 20. Bxe5 {[%eval 15,27] [%emt 0:01:05]} 20... Qd7
{[%eval 0,31] [%emt 0:01:21]} 21. Qh5 {(Qe2) [%eval 7,27] [%emt 0:02:22]} 21...
a4 {[%eval -4,28] [%emt 0:01:15]} 22. Ba1 {[%eval 10,26] [%emt 0:00:59]} 22...
Qe7 {(Qc7) [%eval -12,29] [%emt 0:00:39]} 23. e4 {[%eval 0,24] [%emt 0:01:25]}
23... Bc6 {[%eval -8,32] [%emt 0:00:21]} 24. Re1 {[%eval -1,26] [%emt 0:00:48]}
24... f6 {(Nc7) [%eval -18,31] [%emt 0:01:34]} 25. Qh4
{(Re3) [%eval -8,25] [%emt 0:00:55]} 25... Rf7 {[%eval -8,30] [%emt 0:01:50]}
26. Re3 {[%eval -10,25] [%emt 0:00:00]} 26... Rd7 {[%eval -8,29] [%emt 0:01:54]}
27. Rh3 {[%eval -11,25] [%emt 0:01:53]} 27... g6
{[%eval 35534,30] [%emt 0:00:00]} 28. Qe1 {(Qf2) [%eval -11,26] [%emt 0:00:59]}
28... a5 {(Rf8) [%eval -42,28] [%emt 0:02:39]} 29. Rg3
{(Re3) [%eval 6,23] [%emt 0:01:31]} 29... Nc7
{(Ng7) [%eval 35534,31] [%emt 0:07:49]} 30. h4 {[%eval 10,25] [%emt 0:02:08]}
30... Kf8 {(Rg7) [%eval 0,32] [%emt 0:00:00]} 31. Nf3
{(Qe3) [%eval 3,25] [%emt 0:03:13]} 31... Na6 {[%eval 0,33] [%emt 0:01:07]} 32.
Nh2 {(e5) [%eval -1,24] [%emt 0:00:00]} 32... Nb4
{[%eval -34,31] [%emt 0:00:54]} 33. Qe2 {[%eval 5,25] [%emt 0:00:00]} 33... Rb7
{[%eval -26,31] [%emt 0:00:58]} 34. Ng4 {[%eval 4,25] [%emt 0:00:11]} 34... h5
{(Na6) [%eval -20,31] [%emt 0:00:55]} 35. Nf2 {[%eval 0,25] [%emt 0:01:06]}
35... Rg7 {[%eval -20,31] [%emt 0:00:13]} 36. Nh3
{(Qd2) [%eval -1,26] [%emt 0:01:04]} 36... Na6
{(Kg8) [%eval -18,28] [%emt 0:01:35]} 37. Qd1
{(Qc2) [%eval 4,25] [%emt 0:02:36]} 37... Kg8
{(Nb4) [%eval -34,32] [%emt 0:00:48]} 38. Kh2
{(Qd2) [%eval -5,26] [%emt 0:01:28]} 38... Nb8
{(Qd8) [%eval -26,31] [%emt 0:01:30]} 39. Qe1 {(e5) [%eval 8,23] [%emt 0:00:39]}
39... Rb4 {(Nd7) [%eval -18,29] [%emt 0:01:20]} 40. Ng1
{(Bc3) [%eval -5,25] [%emt 0:00:38]} 40... Qd8 {[%eval -46,31] [%emt 0:02:06]}
41. Bc3 {[%eval 0,26] [%emt 0:00:00]} 41... Nd7
{(Rb3) [%eval -34,32] [%emt 0:00:52]} 42. Nf3 {[%eval -25,24] [%emt 0:00:50]}
42... Qb8 {[%eval -36,33] [%emt 0:00:00]} 43. e5 {[%eval -15,26] [%emt 0:02:06]}
43... f5 {(Rb1) [%eval -38,34] [%emt 0:00:00]} 44. Ng5
{(Ra1) [%eval -11,23] [%emt 0:00:47]} 44... Nf8
{(Rb1) [%eval -52,32] [%emt 0:02:04]} 45. Qf2 {[%eval -11,24] [%emt 0:00:34]}
45... Qb6 {[%eval 35534,33] [%emt 0:00:20]} 46. Ra2
{[%eval -19,25] [%emt 0:00:18]} 46... Be8 {(Rb1) [%eval -66,29] [%emt 0:00:18]}
47. Bb2 {(Re3) [%eval -20,24] [%emt 0:00:33]} 47... Rb3
{[%eval -60,30] [%emt 0:00:41]} 48. Ba3 {[%eval -28,24] [%emt 0:00:21]} 48...
Rc7 {[%eval -60,33] [%emt 0:00:16]} 49. Qd2
{(Qe2) [%eval -28,27] [%emt 0:00:42]} 49... Rd7
{(Nd7) [%eval -60,33] [%emt 0:00:34]} 50. Qf2 {[%eval -31,26] [%emt 0:00:53]}
50... Rd4 {[%eval -60,35] [%emt 0:00:00]} 51. Rh3
{[%eval -28,26] [%emt 0:00:31]} 51... Bc6 {[%eval -52,36] [%emt 0:00:53]} 52.
Re3 {[%eval -28,27] [%emt 0:00:00]} 52... Kg7
{(Ba8) [%eval -52,35] [%emt 0:01:35]} 53. Rg3 {[%eval -28,26] [%emt 0:00:40]}
53... Qa7 {(Bb7) [%eval -52,35] [%emt 0:00:00]} 54. Qf1
{(Re3) [%eval -28,25] [%emt 0:00:30]} 54... Kg8 {[%eval -52,34] [%emt 0:00:29]}
55. Bb2 {(Qf2) [%eval -28,25] [%emt 0:00:20]} 55... Rd7
{[%eval -52,33] [%emt 0:00:44]} 56. Ba3 {[%eval -28,27] [%emt 0:00:05]} 56...
Kh8 {(Qb6) [%eval -24,32] [%emt 0:01:34]} 57. Qg1
{(Qe2) [%eval -28,24] [%emt 0:00:30]} 57... Rb4
{(Rd4) [%eval 35534,32] [%emt 0:01:05]} 58. Qf2 {[%eval -11,24] [%emt 0:00:30]}
58... Rd8 {(Qb6) [%eval -40,33] [%emt 0:00:00]} 59. Bc1
{(Rb2) [%eval -4,25] [%emt 0:00:30]} 59... Be8
{(Qe7) [%eval -40,29] [%emt 0:00:19]} 60. Rh3
{(Ba3) [%eval -15,24] [%emt 0:00:29]} 60... Qb6
{(Qe7) [%eval -58,27] [%emt 0:00:28]} 61. Rg3
{(Qc2) [%eval -27,26] [%emt 0:00:40]} 61... Kg8
{(Nh7) [%eval -60,31] [%emt 0:00:17]} 62. Ba3 {[%eval -28,26] [%emt 0:00:29]}
62... Nh7 {(Rd4) [%eval -60,34] [%emt 0:00:00]} 63. Nh3
{[%eval -23,26] [%emt 0:00:29]} 63... Rc8 {(Qc7) [%eval -60,34] [%emt 0:00:00]}
64. Qe2 {(Rd2) [%eval -16,26] [%emt 0:00:33]} 64... Kf7
{(Kh8) [%eval -60,32] [%emt 0:00:20]} 65. Ng1
{(Qf2) [%eval -19,25] [%emt 0:00:28]} 65... Qd8
{(Rb3) [%eval -60,31] [%emt 0:00:36]} 66. Rh3 {[%eval -21,26] [%emt 0:00:30]}
66... Bc6 {[%eval -60,33] [%emt 0:00:00]} 67. Qf2
{[%eval -21,25] [%emt 0:00:27]} 67... Nf8 {(Kg7) [%eval -60,33] [%emt 0:00:15]}
68. Re3 {[%eval -25,25] [%emt 0:00:27]} 68... Kg8
{(Rcb8) [%eval -60,34] [%emt 0:00:16]} 69. Nh3 {[%eval -17,26] [%emt 0:01:17]}
69... Be8 {(Nh7) [%eval 35534,34] [%emt 0:00:00]} 70. Rf3
{[%eval -22,26] [%emt 0:00:32]} 70... Nd7 {(Qb6) [%eval -70,30] [%emt 0:00:02]}
71. Rg3 {[%eval -21,25] [%emt 0:00:34]} 71... Rb3
{[%eval 35534,31] [%emt 0:00:00]} 72. Qe2 {[%eval -43,25] [%emt 0:01:56]} 72...
Kh8 {[%eval 35534,33] [%emt 0:00:00]} 73. Qd1
{(Ng5) [%eval -55,25] [%emt 0:01:30]} 73... Nb8 {[%eval -109,29] [%emt 0:00:22]}
74. Bc1 {[%eval -49,25] [%emt 0:00:05]} 74... Nc6
{(Na6) [%eval 35534,32] [%emt 0:01:09]} 75. Ng5 {[%eval -69,23] [%emt 0:01:44]}
75... Rcb8 {(Nb4) [%eval -137,33] [%emt 0:00:00]} 76. Qg1
{(Qd2) [%eval -56,22] [%emt 0:00:21]} 76... Qb6 {[%eval -153,29] [%emt 0:00:24]}
77. Qd1 {(Be3) [%eval -76,25] [%emt 0:00:05]} 77... Rb1
{(Nb4) [%eval -149,28] [%emt 0:00:20]} 78. Qd2 {[%eval -106,22] [%emt 0:00:38]}
78... Kg8 {[%eval 35534,32] [%emt 0:00:00]} 79. Ba3
{(Rh3) [%eval -120,25] [%emt 0:01:08]} 79... Rb3
{[%eval -189,30] [%emt 0:00:19]} 80. Bc1 {[%eval -117,25] [%emt 0:00:05]} 80...
Nb4 {[%eval -200,31] [%emt 0:00:12]} 81. Rb2 {[%eval -129,25] [%emt 0:00:53]}
81... Qd8 {(Na6) [%eval -189,31] [%emt 0:00:00]} 82. Qe2
{(Rxb3) [%eval -145,22] [%emt 0:00:27]} 82... Qe7
{(Qd7) [%eval -197,31] [%emt 0:00:55]} 83. Qd1 {[%eval -127,23] [%emt 0:00:44]}
83... Nc6 {[%eval 35534,31] [%emt 0:00:00]} 84. Ra2
{(Qd2) [%eval -124,24] [%emt 0:00:21]} 84... Rb1
{[%eval -218,31] [%emt 0:00:35]} 85. Qd2 {[%eval -132,26] [%emt 0:00:00]} 85...
Qd7 {[%eval -193,32] [%emt 0:00:16]} 86. Nh3
{(Re3) [%eval -108,25] [%emt 0:00:27]} 86... R8b7
{(Nb4) [%eval -232,27] [%emt 0:00:15]} 87. Ng5
{(Ng1) [%eval -115,25] [%emt 0:00:19]} 87... Nb4
{(Qe7) [%eval -276,26] [%emt 0:00:31]} 88. Ra3 {[%eval -80,25] [%emt 0:00:20]}
88... Qe7 {(Rb6) [%eval -125,30] [%emt 0:00:00]} 89. Qc3
{(Rh3) [%eval -62,25] [%emt 0:00:35]} 89... Nc6 {[%eval -145,30] [%emt 0:00:16]}
90. Rxa4 {[%eval -97,25] [%emt 0:00:20]} 90... Nd4
{(R7b3) [%eval -157,30] [%emt 0:00:00]} 91. Ra2 {[%eval -95,25] [%emt 0:00:50]}
91... a4 {[%eval -155,33] [%emt 0:00:00]} 92. Re3
{[%eval -143,25] [%emt 0:00:38]} 92... R7b3 {[%eval 35534,37] [%emt 0:00:11]}
93. Qd2 {[%eval -160,25] [%emt 0:00:19]} 93... Qb7
{(Qa7) [%eval 35534,36] [%emt 0:00:33]} 94. Re1 {[%eval -138,26] [%emt 0:00:29]}
94... Qb4 {[%eval -197,35] [%emt 0:00:00]} 95. Qe3
{[%eval -166,25] [%emt 0:00:15]} 95... Qc3 {[%eval -193,36] [%emt 0:00:10]} 96.
Rd1 {[%eval -175,25] [%emt 0:00:14]} 96... Bc6 {[%eval -193,36] [%emt 0:00:13]}
97. Nh3 {[%eval -203,24] [%emt 0:00:11]} 97... Kf7
{[%eval 35534,36] [%emt 0:00:18]} 98. Nf2
{(Ng5+) [%eval -205,23] [%emt 0:00:08]} 98... Ra1
{[%eval -193,34] [%emt 0:00:18]} 99. Rxa1 {[%eval -209,24] [%emt 0:00:00]} 99...
Qxa1 {[%eval -228,35] [%emt 0:00:25]} 100. Qe1 {[%eval -188,26] [%emt 0:00:00]}
100... Qc3 {[%eval -252,35] [%emt 0:00:26]} 101. Bd2
{[%eval -191,28] [%emt 0:00:00]} 101... Qb2 {[%eval 35534,35] [%emt 0:00:25]}
102. Be3 {[%eval -194,26] [%emt 0:00:00]} 102... Rb7
{(Qe2) [%eval -260,33] [%emt 0:00:20]} 103. Rd2
{(Bc1) [%eval -171,25] [%emt 0:00:16]} 103... Qc3
{(Qb1) [%eval 35534,35] [%emt 0:00:24]} 104. Nd1
{[%eval -245,23] [%emt 0:00:16]} 104... Qa1 {[%eval -387,30] [%emt 0:00:00]}
105. Qg3 {[%eval -262,25] [%emt 0:00:43]} 105... Nb3
{[%eval 35534,33] [%emt 0:00:00]} 106. Qg5 {[%eval -282,25] [%emt 0:00:15]}
106... Kg7 {[%eval -464,34] [%emt 0:00:15]} 107. Qf6+
{[%eval -296,27] [%emt 0:00:24]} 107... Kh7 {[%eval -482,34] [%emt 0:00:01]}
108. Rf2 {(Rb2) [%eval -295,27] [%emt 0:00:17]} 108... Rg7
{[%eval 35534,35] [%emt 0:00:50]} 109. Rf1
{(Qxe6) [%eval -298,26] [%emt 0:00:00]} 109... a3
{[%eval -478,27] [%emt 0:00:05]} 110. Qxe6 {[%eval -293,26] [%emt 0:00:31]}
110... Bb7 {[%eval 35534,32] [%emt 0:00:02]} 111. Qf6
{[%eval -286,25] [%emt 0:00:14]} 111... a2
{(Qb1) [%eval 35534,29] [%emt 0:00:00]} 112. g4
{(Bf2) [%eval -587,21] [%emt 0:00:19]} 112... Nd4
{[%eval -630,26] [%emt 0:00:06]} 113. gxh5 {[%eval -657,23] [%emt 0:00:28]}
113... gxh5 {[%eval 35534,31] [%emt 0:00:00]} 114. Bxd4
{[%eval -574,23] [%emt 0:00:16]} 114... Qxd4 {[%eval 35534,28] [%emt 0:00:00]}
115. Qxf5+ {[%eval -654,21] [%emt 0:00:05]} 115... Kg8
{[%eval -761,27] [%emt 0:00:04]} 116. Qe6+ {[%eval -681,23] [%emt 0:00:28]}
116... Kf8 {[%eval 35534,29] [%emt 0:00:00]} 117. Qf6+
{[%eval -698,21] [%emt 0:00:05]} 117... Rf7 {[%eval -838,27] [%emt 0:00:03]}
118. Qh6+ {[%eval -612,23] [%emt 0:00:25]} 118... Ke8
{[%eval -880,29] [%emt 0:00:00]} 119. Qe6+ {[%eval -714,21] [%emt 0:00:13]}
119... Re7 {[%eval -907,28] [%emt 0:00:00]} 120. Qg8+
{[%eval -684,23] [%emt 0:00:29]} 120... Kd7 {[%eval -919,30] [%emt 0:00:11]}
121. Qb8 {[%eval -731,21] [%emt 0:00:13]} 121... a1Q
{[%eval -874,30] [%emt 0:00:26]} 0-1
[/pgn]

And some highlights, no comments, please enjoy.

[D]r1b1kbnr/1pq1pppp/p1n5/1Bpp4/8/1P2PN2/PBPP1PPP/RN1QK2R w KQkq - 0 6

[D]3rnrk1/1bq1bppp/pp2p3/P1p1N3/2P2P2/1R1PP3/1B1N2PP/3Q1RK1 b - - 0 17

[D]3rnrk1/4q1pp/p1b1pp2/2p4Q/p1P1PP2/R2P4/3N2PP/B3R1K1 w - - 0 25

[D]5k2/1r2qr2/2b1ppp1/p1p4p/pnP1PPNP/R2P2R1/4Q1P1/B5K1 w - - 0 35

[D]4bnk1/6r1/1q2p1p1/p1p1PpNp/prP2P1P/2BP2R1/R4QPK/8 w - - 0 47

[D]1r2b2k/8/1qn1p1p1/p1p1PpNp/p1P2P1P/1r1P2R1/R5PK/2BQ4 b - - 0 77

[D]4b1k1/4q3/4p1p1/2p1PpNp/p1Pn1P1P/1rQPR3/R5PK/1rB5 w - - 0 93

[D]8/5k2/2b1p1p1/2p1Pp1p/p1Pn1P1P/1rqPQ3/R4NPK/r1BR4 w - - 0 99

[D]8/1r4k1/2b1pQp1/2p1Pp1p/p1P2P1P/1n1PB3/3R2PK/q2N4 b - - 0 107

[D]8/1b4rk/5Qp1/2p1Pp1p/2Pn1PPP/3PB3/p6K/q2N1R2 w - - 0 113

[D]6k1/1b4r1/4Q3/2p1P2p/2Pq1P1P/3P4/p6K/3N1R2 b - - 0 116

[D]1Q6/1b1kr3/8/2p1P2p/2Pq1P1P/3P4/7K/q2N1R2 w - - 0 122

Best, Lyudmil

Post Reply