Does YOUR Engine Play This Exchange Sac?

[peter]

For my SF- trial before I had SF dev. from Dezember 21, so I downloaded the one of yesterday and gave it three more trials. Each time with 30 threads of 16x3.5GHz Ryzen, avx2- compile from abrok- site and 32 G hash, always after latest 1'30 Rd4 was on top for a while.

That's the shortest time to Rd4 from the three latest runs:

3rk2r/1pq1bpp1/p3bn2/2p1p3/N3P2p/3BBP2/PPP2QPP/2RR2K1 b k - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 200122:

19...c4 20.Bb6 Qc6 21.Bxd8 Bxd8
=/+ (-0.63) Depth: 7/7 00:00:03 64kN
...
19...c4 20.Bf1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 h3 22.g3 b5 23.Nc5 Bg4 24.Nxa6 Qc8 25.fxg4 Nxg4 26.Qe2 Nxe3 27.Qxe3 Qxa6 28.Rd5 0-0 29.Bxh3 Rd8 30.Qd2 Qa7+ 31.Kg2 Rxd5 32.Qxd5 Qa4 33.Bd7 Qxc2+ 34.Kh3 Qxb2
= (-0.26) Depth: 25/36 00:00:04 20233kN
19...Rd4 20.c4 Nh5 21.Nc3 Qd8 22.Bf1 Bg5 23.b4 b6 24.bxc5 bxc5 25.Nd5 0-0 26.Re1 Bxe3 27.Qxe3 Nf4 28.Nxf4 exf4 29.Qxf4 h3 30.gxh3 Qa5 31.Qe3 Rfd8 32.f4 Qxa2 33.Qc3 Qd2 34.Qxd2 Rxd2
= (-0.10) Depth: 26/38 00:00:04 39529kN
...
19...Rd4 20.Bxd4 exd4 21.c3 Bd7 22.b3 Bd6 23.Nxc5 Bxh2+ 24.Kh1 Bc6 25.e5 Bxe5 26.Nxa6 bxa6 27.cxd4 Bf4 28.Qc2 Bxc1 29.Rxc1 0-0 30.Qxc6 Qf4 31.Qc7 Qe3 32.Rd1 h3 33.Qe5 Qf2 34.Rg1 Re8 35.Qg5 Re1 36.Rxe1 hxg2+ 37.Qxg2 Qxe1+ 38.Qg1 Qc3 39.Qe3 g6 40.Kg1 Kg7 41.Kf2 Qb2+ 42.Kg1
= (0.00) Depth: 52/63 00:01:16 1935MN, tb=14225
19...c4
= (-0.08 ++) Depth: 53/62 00:01:49 2724MN, tb=21955
...
19...c4 20.Bf1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 b5 22.Nc5 Bc8 23.b3 Nd7 24.Nxd7 Bxd7 25.bxc4 bxc4 26.Bb6 Qc8 27.Rd5 f6 28.h3 Be6 29.Rd1 Kf7 30.Rb1 Qb7 31.a4 Rb8 32.a5 g5 33.c3 Qc6 34.Qa2 Kg7 35.Kh2 Bf7 36.Re1 Rb7 37.Ra1 Bc5 38.Rb1 Bd6 39.Qd2 Be6 40.Qc2 Rb8 41.Qa2 Be7 42.Qc2
= (0.00) Depth: 54/51 00:03:02 4488MN, tb=64158

From 4" to 1'49" it was on top, maybe engine would change it's mind with longer pondering again back from ...c4, anyhow it seems as for last posting I simply broke off too soon after arising of Rd4, to see ...c4 coming back again.

Then I had one more LC0- run on 3070ti- GPU:

3rk2r/1pq1bpp1/p3bn2/2p1p3/N3P2p/3BBP2/PPP2QPP/2RR2K1 b k - 0 1

Analysis by Lc0 v0.28.2:

19...c4 20.Bf1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 Nd7 22.Nc3 0-0 23.Nd5 Bxd5 24.exd5 b5 25.b3
= (-0.04) Depth: 7/12 00:00:00 1kN
...
19...c4 20.Bf1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 h3 22.gxh3 0-0 23.b3 Rd8 24.Rxd8+ Qxd8 25.Qd2 Qc7 26.bxc4 Nd7 27.Bf2 Qc6 28.Nc3 Bb4 29.Qd3 Bc5 30.Nd5 Bxf2+ 31.Kxf2
= (-0.04) Depth: 14/49 00:00:23 203kN
19...Rd4 20.c4 Nh5 21.Nc3 Qd8 22.Nd5 Bg5 23.b4 b6 24.bxc5 bxc5 25.Bf1 0-0 26.Re1 Bxe3 27.Qxe3 Nf4 28.Nxf4 exf4 29.Qxf4 Rd2 30.Qe3 h3 31.gxh3 Rxa2 32.f4 Re8 33.Rcd1 Qf6
= (-0.08) Depth: 14/49 00:00:26 245kN
...
19...Rd4 20.Bxd4 exd4 21.c3 Bd7 22.b3 Bd6 23.Nxc5 Bxh2+ 24.Kh1 Bc6 25.e5 Bxe5 26.Nxa6 bxa6 27.cxd4 Bf4 28.Qc2 Bxc1 29.Rxc1 0-0 30.Qxc6 Qf4 31.Qc7 Qe3 32.Rd1 h3 33.Qe5 Qf2 34.Rg1 Re8 35.Qg5 Re1 36.Rxe1 hxg2+ 37.Qxg2 Qxe1+ 38.Qg1 Qd2 39.Bxa6 Qxa2 40.Bc4 Qd2 41.Qg6 Qc1+ 42.Qg1 Qf4 43.Kg2 Qg5+ 44.Kf1 Qc1+
= (-0.06) Depth: 22/59 00:03:08 1860kN
...
19...Rd4 20.Bxd4 exd4 21.c3 Bd7 22.b3 b5 23.b4 bxa4 24.cxd4 c4 25.Bxc4 Qb7 26.a3 Bd8 27.Qf1 0-0 28.Bxa6 Qb8 29.Kh1 g6 30.Qc4 Kg7 31.e5 Nh5 32.Qd5 Be6 33.Qd6 Bg5 34.Qxb8 Rxb8 35.Rc7 Nf4 36.Bc4 Nd5 37.Bxd5 Bxd5 38.Rd3 Bf4 39.Rc5 Be6 40.Kg1 Rd8 41.Kf2 Bxh2
= (-0.04) Depth: 24/61 00:05:12 3357kN

Of course too short to get an output- line with little chance of change of first move neither.
Yet anyhow, the two moves are rather near to each other in chances for both sides, I'd say, and yes, letting some engines play out from 19...c4 as well as from 19...Rd4 (20.Bxd4 exd4 21.c3) would be of some interest, even if I think draw- rate wouldn't be small as for strong software- hardware- TC- combis with both starting positions.

[j.t.]

Does YOUR engine play it?

No.

[Shahrad]

This is from Kramnik's Chessable course "Grandmaster's Thinking". 1.Rd5 Be6 2.e4 or 1.e4 Be6 2.Rd5
[fen]r2rn1k1/pp4pp/2q2p2/2p5/2P5/P1Q1PP1b/1B2BP1P/R2R3K w - - 0 1[/fen]

[BrendanJNorman]

This is from Kramnik's Chessable course "Grandmaster's Thinking". 1.Rd5 Be6 2.e4 or 1.e4 Be6 2.Rd5
[fen]r2rn1k1/pp4pp/2q2p2/2p5/2P5/P1Q1PP1b/1B2BP1P/R2R3K w - - 0 1[/fen]

I'm a HUGE Kramnik fan, which is why I guess such exchange sacrifices comes naturally to me...Kramnik is an exchange sac specialist!

In fact, my opponent said to me after he resigned Nice Kramnik-like sac!"

That Rd5+e4 exchange sac construction is very typical Kramnik as well. Love it.

[Shahrad]

Sorry to disappoint you a tiny bit. Kramnik did play ...Be6 instead of ...f6, he didn't want to allow (did fear) this exchange sacrifice.
Anyway: I am a huge Kramnik fan too.

[BrendanJNorman]

Sorry to disappoint you a tiny bit. Kramnik did play ...Be6 instead of ...f6, he didn't want to allow (did fear) this exchange sacrifice.
Anyway: I am a huge Kramnik fan too.

Nah I've been the game...just forgot which side Kramnik was. His career is replete with examples of him doing the same thing on the winning side.

Kramnik from 1996-2002 or so was just fantastic. Flashes of brilliance later too, but his health and motivation suffered a bit.

[Vernon Crawford]

So yesterday I played against a buddy of mine in Russia on chess.com and after losing the first game on time (I really suck at playing fast on the phone app), I played really aggressively and won the second game quickly...
One of the key ideas was this idea 19...Rd4!? I came up with.

Yes, you're absolutely brilliant!

My question is: Does YOUR engine play it?

No and I'm happy to see it...
top engines are enormously stronger than you and Kramnik.

I'm a HUGE Kramnik fan, which is why I guess such exchange sacrifices comes naturally to me...

In fact, my opponent said to me after he resigned Nice Kramnik-like sac!"

That Rd5+e4 exchange sac construction is very typical Kramnik as well. Love it.

Sorry, you're no Kramnik...but perhaps you are a bit carried away with yourself!

[BrendanJNorman]

So yesterday I played against a buddy of mine in Russia on chess.com and after losing the first game on time (I really suck at playing fast on the phone app), I played really aggressively and won the second game quickly...
One of the key ideas was this idea 19...Rd4!? I came up with.

Yes, you're absolutely brilliant!

My question is: Does YOUR engine play it?

No and I'm happy to see it...
top engines are enormously stronger than you and Kramnik.

I'm a HUGE Kramnik fan, which is why I guess such exchange sacrifices comes naturally to me...

In fact, my opponent said to me after he resigned Nice Kramnik-like sac!"

That Rd5+e4 exchange sac construction is very typical Kramnik as well. Love it.

Sorry, you're no Kramnik...but perhaps you are a bit carried away with yourself!

What's the matter, Vernon? What's making you such a salty and toxic grouch?

Wife left you? Stocks down? Threw your life away? Let the weight get a bit out of hand?

A combination of the above (likely)?

People kicking ass in life don't spend one of their (47) posts throwing dirt on others for no reason.

Be nicer. Nowhere did I imply that I was as strong as Kramnik, nor that I am brilliant.

I'm merely 2320 or so on chess.com, not 2800.

But the exchange sacrifice I posted IS interesting, IS the strongest practical move, and IS worthy of interest for computer chess people (as evidenced by other people checking it with their engines).

Your comment is just trashy and toxic...

Remember, Vernon: Everyone is in construction, it's just that some people are builders, others are trash men. Some build buildings that reach the stars, some use bombs to bring other's buildings down. You're acting like a trash man.

[BrendanJNorman]

I was curious to see how Blunder would manage the position for white and black after Rc4. It eventually drew itself (tc=40/2 min):

[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.01.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Blunder dev"]
[Black "Blunder dev"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "4k2r/1pq1bpp1/p3bn2/2p1p3/N2rP2p/3BBP2/PPP2QPP/2RR2K1 w k - 1 1"]
[GameDuration "00:07:36"]
[GameEndTime "2022-01-20T06:11:12.340 Central Standard Time"]
[GameStartTime "2022-01-20T06:03:35.750 Central Standard Time"]
[PlyCount "52"]
[SetUp "1"]
[TimeControl "40/300"]

1. Bxd4 {+0.35/18 9.8s} exd4 {-0.39/17 7.5s} 2. c3 {+0.30/17 9.7s}
Bd7 {-0.44/17 7.5s} 3. b3 {+0.34/16 7.4s} b5 {-0.40/17 7.5s}
4. cxd4 {+0.65/15 9.6s} bxa4 {-0.48/17 7.5s} 5. b4 {+0.62/17 9.5s}
h3 {-0.63/16 9.8s} 6. bxc5 {+0.71/16 7.3s} hxg2 {-0.62/17 9.7s}
7. Qg3 {+0.50/17 7.3s} Qa7 {-0.52/16 16s} 8. Bc4 {+0.53/16 7.3s}
Nh5 {-0.49/17 12s} 9. Qe5 {+0.47/17 9.4s} f6 {-0.35/18 12s}
10. Qd5 {+0.26/17 12s} Qc7 {-0.35/16 8.8s} 11. Qf7+ {+0.26/15 15s}
Kd8 {-0.25/14 8.7s} 12. Rb1 {-0.25/16 15s} g5 {-0.25/16 11s}
13. Bxa6 {-0.25/15 11s} Nf4 {+0.02/16 23s} 14. Rb7 {-0.25/16 11s}
Ne2+ {-0.25/16 13s} 15. Kf2 {-0.25/16 6.1s} Qxh2 {-0.25/16 5.6s}
16. Rxd7+ {-0.25/15 13s} Kxd7 {-0.25/15 5.6s} 17. c6+ {-0.25/15 9.8s}
Kd8 {-0.25/14 5.6s} 18. c7+ {-0.25/14 12s} Qxc7 {-0.25/14 5.6s}
19. Bxe2 {-0.25/16 12s} Qh2 {-0.25/16 9.5s} 20. Rg1 {-0.25/17 6.5s}
g4 {-0.25/17 9.2s} 21. Rxg2 {-0.25/16 6.4s} g3+ {-0.25/18 5.2s}
22. Kf1 {-0.25/18 4.9s} Qh1+ {-0.25/19 5.2s} 23. Rg1 {-0.25/19 4.9s}
Qh3+ {-0.25/19 6.8s} 24. Rg2 {-0.25/18 4.9s} Qh1+ {-0.25/19 5.2s}
25. Rg1 {-0.25/100 0.002s} Qh3+ {-0.25/19 6.7s} 26. Rg2 {-0.25/25 5.2s}
Qh1+ {-0.25/19 5.1s, Draw by 3-fold repetition} 1/2-1/2
[/pgn]

Interesting dynamic imbalance created by the sacrifice. White indeed gets enough compensation. Thanks for checking with Blunder.

[BrendanJNorman]

BTW...what is that GUI? A themed-up Shredder Classic? Looks nice!

Yes it is Shredder;



Dark Mode Settings

Goto Windows Menu > Design > Colors

Text and Moves R: 228 G: 243 B: 243
Text Background R: 117 G: 117 B: 117
Windows Background R:89 G: 89 B:89
Engine Information R: 58 G: 116 B: 116
Engine Name R: 255 G: 255 B: 255
Engine Name Background R: 0 G: 193 B: 49

First Variation R: 187 G: 255 B: 187
Further Variations R: 245 G: 245 B: 245
Current Move R: 255 G: 255 B: 121
Comments R: 255 G: 255 B: 255
Permanent Brain Info R: 215 G: 215 B: 236

Classic Light 2D Squares R: 208 G: 224 B: 208
Classic Dark 2D Squares R: 128 G: 160 B: 160

Thanks mate!

I lost my Shredder Classic key, so I guess I'll stick with Banksia for now. Can probably use those colors to create a similar theme in Banksia anyway.