Tobber wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:MikeGL wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
803 games in total.
Out of 803 hand picked games, not even a single game for your talkchess family? At least we can discuss some games deeper. Because there's no analysis yet for any of those games, as you claimed.
What do you mean, I just posted one.
Now try refuting Bxa4 does not win for black.
This is my favourite forum(when Harm is not around), I would have posted here constantly, just too busy.
From your game:
[d]rr4k1/2nqbppp/1n2p3/3pP1B1/1ppP1Q2/p3NN1P/2P1BPP1/1R2R1K1 w - - 0 25
Here white plays Nd2 which is as bad as it gets, how about Ne3-g4? Could even win it for white. Against you I'm pretty sure SF would have won it.
There are other examples of bad play from white like 27. Bxe7 where Bg5-f6 would hold a draw.
You better come up with another example, your credibility is suffering.
/John
That is what I get in game play from SF 9:
[pgn][Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "owner"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r4rk1/2nqbppp/1nb1p3/p2pP3/PppP1B2/1P3N1P/2PQBPP1/R2NR1K1 b - - 0 19"]
[PlyCount "77"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]
{512MB, OWNER-PC} 19... Bxa4 {0} 20. bxa4 {0.90/25 5} Nxa4 {0.61/22 1} 21. h4 {
0.55/22 1} Nb6 {0.37/20 1} 22. h5 {0.59/22 1} Qd8 {0.30/20 1} 23. Ne3 {0.40/20
0} Nb5 {0.27/21 0} 24. Ng4 {0.54/20 1} Nd7 {0.22/20 1} 25. h6 {0.30/18 1} g6 {
0.22/20 1} 26. Bh2 {0.42/18 1} a4 {0.00/17 0} 27. Bf4 {-0.07/17 1} b3 {-0.51/
20 1} 28. Qc1 {-0.41/17 1} Bb4 {-0.61/20 1} 29. cxb3 {-0.41/19 1} axb3 {-0.24/
20 1} 30. Bd2 {-0.38/20 0} Bxd2 {-1.29/20 1} 31. Qxd2 {-0.98/21 0} c3 {-1.27/
20 1} 32. Qc1 {-0.65/20 0} b2 {-0.58/22 0} 33. Rxa8 {-0.60/24 1} bxc1=N {-0.57/
21 0} 34. Rxd8 {-0.57/21 0} Nxe2+ {-0.62/20 0} 35. Kf1 {-0.36/22 0} Ng3+ {-0.
40/19 0} 36. fxg3 {-0.81/22 0} Rxd8 {-0.70/21 0} 37. Ke2 {-0.87/20 0} Rc8 {-0.
88/22 0} 38. Kd3 {-0.87/22 0} c2 {-0.60/21 0} 39. Rc1 {-0.37/24 0} Na3 {-0.70/
21 0} 40. Ne3 {-0.92/20 0} f6 {-0.85/18 0} 41. exf6 {-0.61/20 0} Nxf6 {-0.57/
21 0} 42. Ng5 {-0.47/18 0} Rb8 {-0.80/22 0} 43. g4 {-0.62/21 0} Ne4 {-1.02/20 0
} 44. Nxe4 {-0.98/19 0} dxe4+ {-1.22/20 0} 45. Kd2 {-1.21/20 0} Kf7 {-1.30/22 0
} 46. g5 {-1.06/21 0} e5 {-1.19/21 0} 47. Nxc2 {-1.29/20 0} Nc4+ {-1.37/20 0}
48. Ke1 {-1.30/19 0} Ke6 {-1.38/21 0} 49. dxe5 {-1.31/20 0} Kxe5 {-1.25/20 0}
50. Ra1 {-1.45/19 0} Rb2 {-1.32/18 0} 51. Kd1 {-1.24/20 0} Rb7 {-1.22/19 0} 52.
Ra6 {-1.15/20 0} Kf4 {-1.34/19 0} 53. Rc6 {-1.56/19 0} Ne5 {-1.55/20 0} 54. Rc5
{-1.35/22 0} Nf7 {-1.48/21 0} 55. Ke1 {-1.28/21 0} Rb2 {-1.15/18 0} 56. Kf1 {
-1.27/21 0} Nxg5 {-0.96/17 0} 57. Rc7 {-1.28/20 0} Ra2 {-1.23/21 0} *
[/pgn]
Score turns in black's favour.
Black is winning or sufficiently close to a win.
In analysis, it will turn out the same.
There are better moves for white, but there are better moves for BLACK TOO.
As you see, I have spent countless games, hours and analysis sessions before formulating my knowledge.
Concerning the validity of the 'spearhead connected passer' concept, I have formulated it explicitly, ONLY after seeing its validity corroborated in at least some 50-100 examples.
So that, all you are doing is insinuation.
Do your analysis better.