thank you fastgm !
this score seems devestating and gives a new "best line" as well...impressive analysis, thank you ...this score is much higher than that i was ever analysing...from my pov this should most probably gives us the conclusion that Lyudmil Tsvetkov's assumption that 1. Qf6 (sac) was correct and HIS move wins !!?...we can call now this position as a "testposition of first class" imo...thx again awesome analysis !
Wahrheiten sind Illusionen von denen wir aber vergessen haben dass sie welche sind.
thank you fastgm !
this score seems devestating and gives a new "best line" as well...impressive analysis, thank you ...this score is much higher than that i was ever analysing...from my pov this should most probably gives us the conclusion that Lyudmil Tsvetkov's assumption that 1. Qf6 (sac) was correct and HIS move wins !!?...we can call now this position as a "testposition of first class" imo...thx again awesome analysis !
I have completely done the analysis . Will post it tomorrow.
thank you fastgm !
this score seems devestating and gives a new "best line" as well...impressive analysis, thank you ...this score is much higher than that i was ever analysing...from my pov this should most probably gives us the conclusion that Lyudmil Tsvetkov's assumption that 1. Qf6 (sac) was correct and HIS move wins !!?...we can call now this position as a "testposition of first class" imo...thx again awesome analysis !
I have completely done the analysis . Will post it tomorrow.
you guys are awesome, thank you Louis, Peter, MasterOm, fastgm and all others...finally we got a conclusion...cant wait for your analysis MasterOm...we had a long way to go ...great stuff !
Wahrheiten sind Illusionen von denen wir aber vergessen haben dass sie welche sind.
Spliffjiffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:16 pm
thank you fastgm !
this score seems devestating and gives a new "best line" as well...impressive analysis, thank you ...this score is much higher than that i was ever analysing...from my pov this should most probably gives us the conclusion that Lyudmil Tsvetkov's assumption that 1. Qf6 (sac) was correct and HIS move wins !!?...we can call now this position as a "testposition of first class" imo...thx again awesome analysis !
But, Spliffjiffer, it looks like the hard part is further down the line, i.e. not 1. Qf6+ ("easy" ) but 3. Bd2 (and maybe later moves too). I think most reasonably good chessplayers would play 3. Ng5.
well its probably a matter of taste wether one prefers Ng5 or Bd2 instead...as im not a good player my interpretation is not worth much but for my taste Bd2 seems natural because of 3 reasons: 1./2. it avoids simplifications by securing the bishop from trading and opens the way for the rook to the kingside, 3. it is positioning the bishop to exactely there where it belongs to imo, namely the structural problem of the f7/g6/h7 pawn formation which weakens the black squares with the aim to get to g7 and mating ideas...on the other hand Ng5 seems most aggressive and is seeking the immediate knockout which seems to work nearly...so from my pov Bd2 seems to be the positional approach and Ng5 the tactical one filled with pure aggression...which approach works best though is just a matter of precise calculation...my own impression was and is that Bd2 seems more natural (to me personally)
btw: that Lyudmil is the aggressive type of player he is showing not least in an other brilliant assessment in his attempt to claim a win in this position (no diagram, offtopic):
rnb2rk1/1pq1bppp/p3p3/2npP1P1/3N1P2/2NBB3/PPP4P/R2QK2R w KQ - 0 1
1.Bxh7 !!?, Kxh7 2. Qh5+, Kg8 3. Rg1?!...thats the pure aggression i mean, chesswise, and ironically the 3rd move again ...but his initial assumption is correct again according to my analysis !?
Wahrheiten sind Illusionen von denen wir aber vergessen haben dass sie welche sind.
This is nice. It takes time for SF to know Ng5 is draw and Bd2 wins instantly. There is No answer to Bh6!!.
Maybe the position before 3.Bd2 deserve a test position for itself.
That's recurrent problem with Stockfish : when it has a bad position it often satisfies with a drawing move even when there's a winning move. Another version of this problem : when SF finds a move with eval "+3" it has trouble to find a "+10" move.
Engines can find 1.Qf6+ only to make a draw. That's not bad already.
I'll test deeper this evening : 1r3rk1/5p1p/1qb1pPp1/3pP3/p1pP4/PpP2N1R/1Pn1B2P/3RB2K w - - 1 3.
Is Bd2 the clear best move here ?
This is nice. It takes time for SF to know Ng5 is draw and Bd2 wins instantly. There is No answer to Bh6!!.
Maybe the position before 3.Bd2 deserve a test position for itself.
That's recurrent problem with Stockfish : when it has a bad position it often satisfies with a drawing move even when there's a winning move. Another version of this problem : when SF finds a move with eval "+3" it has trouble to find a "+10" move.
Engines can find 1.Qf6+ only to make a draw. That's not bad already.
I'll test deeper this evening : 1r3rk1/5p1p/1qb1pPp1/3pP3/p1pP4/PpP2N1R/1Pn1B2P/3RB2K w - - 1 3.
Is Bd2 the clear best move here ?
...this score is much higher than that i was ever analysing...from my pov this should most probably gives us the conclusion that Lyudmil Tsvetkov's assumption that 1. Qf6 (sac) was correct and HIS move wins !!?...we can call now this position as a "testposition of first class" imo...thx again awesome analysis !
...great stuff !