Testposition Caro-Kann, medium difficulty

[Eelco de Groot]

From an opening analysis in the Caro-Kann, why is 14... Ne7 a blunder?

[d]r1bq1rk1/pp2npp1/3bpn1p/8/3P4/P1NBBN2/1P1Q1PPP/R3R1K1 w - - 0 15

Hiarcs 12 in its default settings did not see this when analyzing the position after 14. Qd2 ,not until after entering 14... Ne7, but I do not know exactly to which depth it was calculating and the fact that it was three best analysis probably played a negative role. So I have to look for a better answer than the Knight move in this position, at first glance it seemed pretty but on the other hand now 14. Qd2 seems to have some value as an opening trap. Analysis of a Playchess Blitz game that Toga lost against a fast Dual core Rybka.

[Event "Partij met rating, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Playchess, Computers toegestaan"]
[Date "2008.05.13"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bong702, Rybka 2.3.2a mp"]
[Black "Ancalagon, Toga 1.4 Checkov Beta 4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B14"]
[WhiteElo "2646"]
[BlackElo "2345"]
[Annotator "0.25;0.57"]
[PlyCount "111"]
[EventDate "2008.05.13"]
[TimeControl "180"]

{Rybka 2.3.2a mp: 17.6 ply; 268kN/s Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.
66GHz, (2 threads), Toga: Athlon 2009 MHz, MOD Hiarcs 12.ctg, 256 MB} 1. e4 {B/0 0} c6 {B/0 0} 2. d4 {B/0 0} d5
{B/0 0} 3. exd5 {B/0 0} cxd5 {B/0 0} 4. c4 {B/0 0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 5. Nc3 {B/0 0}
e6 {B/0 0} 6. Nf3 {B/0 0} Bb4 {B/0 0} 7. cxd5 {B/0 0} Nxd5 {B/0 0} 8. Qc2 {
B/0 0} O-O {B/0 0} 9. Bd3 {B/0 0} h6 {B/0 0} 10. O-O {B/0 0} Nc6 {B/0 0} 11. a3
{B/0 0} Be7 {B/0 0} 12. Re1 {B/0 0} Nf6 {0.57/10 9} 13. Be3 {(Td1) 0.25/12 5}
Ng4 {(Bd7) 0.51/11 7} (13... Bd6 14. Qd2 Ne7 $2 15. Bxh6 $1) 14. Rad1 {
(Lh7+) 0.43/12 1} Kh8 {0.84/11 6} 15. Bc1 {0.55/14 4} Bd6 {(Nf6) 0.94/11 1} 16.
Nb5 {(h3) 0.64/13 4} Bb8 {(Be7) 1.09/11 10} 17. Be4 {(h3) 0.52/12 5} Nf6 {
(a6) 0.54/11 7} 18. Bxc6 {0.52/13 3} bxc6 {0.56/12 0} 19. Qxc6 {0.55/14 1} Bd7
{0.75/12 4} 20. Qc5 {(Db7) 0.55/15 1} Bxb5 {(a6) 0.84/11 7} 21. Qxb5 {0.60/14 1
} Kg8 {(Bd6) 0.84/12 4} 22. Bd2 {0.57/12 5} Bd6 {0.79/12 1} 23. Ne5 {
(b4) 0.65/13 2} Qb6 {(Rb8) 0.79/11 7} 24. Qxb6 {(De2) 0.67/13 7} axb6 {
0.88/10 1} 25. Rc1 {0.67/14 0} b5 {(Rfd8) 0.78/11 3} 26. Re3 {(g3) 0.72/12 2}
Rfc8 {(Nd5) 0.59/12 5} 27. Rxc8+ {0.88/13 2} Rxc8 {0.61/13 0} 28. Rb3 {
(Tc3) 1.01/15 3} Rb8 {0.91/11 4} 29. g3 {(Kf1) 0.99/16 0} g5 {(Nd5) 1.01/11 4}
30. Kg2 {(Le3) 1.12/13 1} Nd5 {(Kg7) 0.91/11 4} 31. h4 {(La5) 1.03/15 4} gxh4 {
1.17/11 5} 32. gxh4 {1.05/17 3} Bxe5 {(h5) 1.27/12 1} 33. dxe5 {1.38/14 1} Kh7
{1.17/11 1} 34. h5 {1.51/16 3} f6 {(Ne7) 1.16/11 1} 35. exf6 {(Lc3) 1.54/16 2}
Nxf6 {1.15/12 3} 36. Kf3 {(Lf4) 1.71/18 3} Rd8 {1.38/11 3} 37. Bc3 {1.68/19 2}
Nd5 {(Nxh5) 1.45/12 0} 38. Be5 {(Txb5) 2.22/16 2} Rf8+ {1.55/12 3} 39. Ke4 {
2.41/19 1} Rxf2 {1.83/12 3} 40. Rxb5 {2.52/20 4} Re2+ {(Kg8) 2.26/12 0} 41. Kd4
{2.71/16 1} Kg8 {2.15/12 3} 42. a4 {2.73/17 1} Kf7 {(Ne7) 2.15/11 1} 43. a5 {
3.35/16 2} Ne7 {(Rd2+) 2.27/12 0} 44. a6 {(Kd3) 3.24/12 0} Re1 {3.14/11 3} 45.
Rb7 {3.72/15 1} Ke8 {3.38/11 1} 46. Bf6 {4.06/15 1} Rd1+ {3.46/10 3} 47. Ke4 {
(Kc4) 4.14/18 1} Nc8 {3.85/11 3} 48. b4 {(a7) 4.70/17 5} Re1+ {3.63/10 2} 49.
Kd3 {4.81/18 1} Rd1+ {3.71/11 1} 50. Ke2 {(Kc2) 4.93/18 1} Rd7 {(Rd6) 3.54/10 2
} 51. Rxd7 {(Lg7) 5.95/14 4} Kxd7 {3.88/9 3} 52. Bg7 {(b5) 5.96/14 0} Kc6 {
(Kd8) 6.12/10 7} 53. Bxh6 {6.97/12 2} Kb5 {(Nd6) 12.56/13 19} 54. Bf8 {
11.36/9 1} Kxa6 {13.60/13 11} 55. h6 {12.43/12 0} Kb5 {(Nb6) 13.25/8 0} 56. h7
{Ancalagon,Toga II 1.4 beta5c geeft op 12.71/8 1} 1-0

[Eelco de Groot]

[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B14"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Bd3 h6 10. O-O Nc6 11. a3 *

By the way, this now almost overnight analysis of earlier position after 11. a3, this is including position learning of the line above and I think it is more or less correct in that 11... Le7 in Hiarcs' book is not the right square for the Bishop to withdraw to, it's almost a loss of tempo!
I wouldnt go as far to say it is not playable but I made it a non tournament move (right click on the move) and removed the !! and !?.


19: Bong702,R - Ancalagon,T, Partij met rating, 3m + 0s 2008
[d]r1bq1rk1/pp3pp1/2n1p2p/3n4/1b1P4/P1NB1N2/1PQ2PPP/R1B2RK1 b - - 0 1

Analysis by Hiarcs 12, Depth 19 completed:

1. +/= (0.34): 11...Ld6 12.Pe4 Lb8 13.Td1 Lc7 14.b3 f5 15.Pc3 Df6
2. +/= (0.55): 11...La5 12.Le3 Lb6 13.Tad1 Ld7 14.Dd2 Tc8 15.Lb1 f5 16.Pxd5 exd5 17.Pe5 De8 18.f4
3. +/= (0.59): 11...Le7 12.Te1 Ld6 13.Ld2 Db6 14.Pe4 Lf4 15.Le3 Ld7 16.Pc5 Dc7 17.Lh7+ Kh8 18.Le4 Ld6

(de Groot, Groningen 14.05.2008)

And the rest of my analysis now:

[Event "Partij met rating, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Computers toegestaan"]
[Date "2008.05.13"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bong702, Rybka 2.3.2a mp"]
[Black "Ancalagon, Toga II 1.4 beta5c"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "B14"]
[WhiteElo "2646"]
[BlackElo "2345"]
[Annotator "0.25;0.57"]
[PlyCount "30"]
[EventDate "2008.05.13"]
[TimeControl "180"]

{Rybka 2.3.2a mp: 17.6 ply; 268kN/s Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.
66GHz, (2 threads), MOD.ctg, 256 MB} 1. e4 {B/0 0} c6 {B/0 0} 2. d4 {B/0 0} d5
{B/0 0} 3. exd5 {B/0 0} cxd5 {B/0 0} 4. c4 {B/0 0} Nf6 {B/0 0} 5. Nc3 {B/0 0}
e6 {B/0 0} 6. Nf3 {B/0 0} Bb4 {B/0 0} 7. cxd5 {B/0 0} Nxd5 {B/0 0} 8. Qc2 {
B/0 0} O-O {B/0 0} 9. Bd3 {B/0 0} h6 {B/0 0} 10. O-O {B/0 0} Nc6 {B/0 0} 11. a3
{B/0 0} Be7 {B/0 0} (11... Bd6) ({Hiarcs 12: 1)} 11... Bd6 12. Ne4 Bb8 13. Rd1
Bc7 14. b3 f5 15. Nc3 Qf6 {0.34/19}) ({Hiarcs 12: 2)} 11... Ba5 12. Be3 Bb6 13.
Rad1 Bd7 14. Qd2 Rc8 15. Bb1 f5 16. Nxd5 exd5 17. Ne5 Qe8 18. f4 {0.55/19}) ({
Hiarcs 12: 3)} 11... Be7 {This seems like a loss of tempo ?!} 12. Re1 Bd6 13. Bd2 Qb6 14. Ne4 Bf4 15. Be3 Bd7 16.
Nc5 Qc7 17. Bh7+ Kh8 18. Be4 Bd6 {0.59/19}) 12. Re1 {B/0 0} Nf6 {0.57/10 9} 13.
Be3 {(Td1) 0.25/12 5} Bd6 (13... Ng4 {(Bd7) 0.51/11 7} 14. Rad1 {
(Lh7+) 0.43/12 1} Nxe3 15. Rxe3 Bd6) 14. Qd2 Ng4 (14... Ne7 $2 {This would be a blunder after:} 15. Bxh6 $1 {!} Nfd5 16. Qg5) 15. Rac1 Qc7 $14 *


Eelco

[PauloSoare]

Eelco, to play in Playchess it´s not easy, you have to have much time to
study the openings. I remember that, to refute a move, I sometimes
analised a unique position for some hours. I think the openings are
very difficult to study, at least for me.
Sometimes, when I thought I had good openings, I was massacred in other variants.
I managed some good wins with studied openings, but less than I expected.

It is very difficult to play with 3 min of control against Rybka. I tried
several programs, but always I returned to play with Rybka.

Anyway it´s fun to play in playchess.

Good luck and fun for you.

Paulo Soares

[Eelco de Groot]

Eelco, to play in Playchess it´s not easy, you have to have much time to
study the openings. I remember that, to refute a move, I sometimes
analised a unique position for some hours. I think the openings are
very difficult to study, at least for me.
Sometimes, when I thought I had good openings, I was massacred in other variants.
I managed some good wins with studied openings, but less than I expected.

It is very difficult to play with 3 min of control against Rybka. I tried
several programs, but always I returned to play with Rybka.

Anyway it´s fun to play in playchess.

Good luck and fun for you.

Paulo Soares

Hi Paulo!

Yes, I agree it is not easy especially with the old computer I have. I think Harvey and Chessbase should make a "Singles Room" or even a room where only dedicated computers are allowed, maybe they could ask Steve Blincoe to supervise it and call it "Steve's Room" or "Blincoe's Battleground Bunker" or something...

I agree that Rybka seems hard to beat at 3+0, three minutes per game, I do not play it anymore, only five minutes or up in my formula. But I was surprised: the results at longer timecontrols seem really better with Toga, and there people in the engineroom are more often also using other programs than Rybka. I was also surprised, the ratings of people with very fast computers, at longer timecontrols, seem to vary much more, for instance I saw Great Ozzie, if I'm not mistaken that is Eros from the Freestyle yesterday with a Fritz 11 playing and and a rating of about 2490 or something thereabouts, and I heard he has really very very fast Skull hardware if he wants to use it! I think people experiment more there at Rapid timecontrols. Was a nice game by the way that Hiarcs 12 won against Eros' Fritz 11. 2490 is not so very high, with Toga 1.4 Checkov I hope I can manage a 2400 rating, even with my 4 your old Athlon 2GHz against all the Quads and dual Xeons with Rybka

Best, Eelco