Hiarcs forum v Rybka Forum Secret Thread.

[Eric Hallsworth]

Hello All

Sorry you've been waiting for me! I can't come up with anything better, I still vote for 19.Re1, but realise 19.g3 easily gets the majority vote, and computer analysis and end of line evaluations all certainly favour 19.g3. But I still fear the long diagonal in the long run and think we'll need to be pretty careful and destined to a pretty defensive future

Sorry to keep you waiting - mother-in-law pretty ill and not able to be at home to do these things as much as I'd wish

Cheers - Eric

[Shaun Brewer]

My vote stays with 19. g3 although I am not sure what their reply will be they all seem to be +0.00 or beter for us?

EDIT:

If

19... Ne5 20. Nxe5 Qxe5

19... Ng4 20. Rc1

19... Rc8 20. Re1

???

Shaun

[Wardy]

I'm at work so can't post the lines from Deep Sjeng, it agrees with g3 as the best move however stepping through the lines it prefers ends up with a worsening score for white, I'm not sure why the other engines see this position as a plus score?

I'll try and post the lines early this evening...

My vote for the moment is g3 but I'm worried that we might not be able to hold the draw regardless?

[Dylan Sharp]

Dylan... What engine please for those evals?

Naum 3.1, I chose it because I realized it's a very strong engine nobody else is using, so while it will not consider strong moves that other members find, it may find strong moves not considered ("Naum moves"), being in a such hardware disadvantage I considered it a decent strategy (Instead of using Rybka on one core when we already have analysis of Rybka on 8core.)

Anyway, g3 wins, one vote to many , I'm moving now.

[Dylan Sharp]

It's: 19.g3 Ng4 20.Rc1 Rc8

What do you have for Naum's 20...N4e5 ?

[Wardy]

Dylan... What engine please for those evals?

Naum 3.1, I chose it because I realized it's a very strong engine nobody else is using, so while it will not consider strong moves that other members find, it may find strong moves not considered ("Naum moves"), being in a such hardware disadvantage I considered it a decent strategy (Instead of using Rybka on one core when we already have analysis of Rybka on 8core.)

Anyway, g3 wins, one vote to many , I'm moving now.

Exactly my logic for using Deep Shredder and Deep Sjeng, others have the leading engines on better hardware than my own so it makes sense to use something different and hope to turn up a gem

[Harvey Williamson]

Here is I think a safe line which leads to a draw

1... Rc8 2. Re1 d5 3. exd5 Bxd5 4. b5 Qb6 5. Rc1 Rxc1+ 6. Bxc1 Bc5 7. Bb2 Bxf3
8. Nxf3 Ng4 9. Bxg6 hxg6 10. Kg2 Nxf2 11. Ng5 Qb7+ 12. Qf3 *

but please check it!

[Wardy]

Here is I think a safe line which leads to a draw

1... Rc8 2. Re1 d5 3. exd5 Bxd5 4. b5 Qb6 5. Rc1 Rxc1+ 6. Bxc1 Bc5 7. Bb2 Bxf3
8. Nxf3 Ng4 9. Bxg6 hxg6 10. Kg2 Nxf2 11. Ng5 Qb7+ 12. Qf3 *

but please check it!

Thanks Harvey I'll take a look at this next

[Wardy]

I left Deep Sjeng running in multi PV mode whilst at work and here are the lines it prefers other than g3

Engine: Deep Sjeng 3.0 (1024 MB)
by Gian-Carlo Pascutto

21 659:11 -0.42 19.Re1 Nf4 20.Bxf4 Qxf4 21.h3 Rc8
22.Qb2 Qc7 23.b5 d6 24.Qb3 Qa5
25.Qb1 Qb6 26.Qb3 Qc5 27.Re2 Qc1+
28.Re1 (60.565.734.825) 1531

21 582:33 -0.45 19.Ra1 Rc8 20.e5 Nd5 21.Be4 Ndf4
22.Qe3 f6 23.exf6 Bxf6 24.Ra5 Bxe4
25.Qxe4 d5 26.Qe1 e5 27.g3 exd4
28.gxf4 Qd6 29.Qe2 Kh8 30.Qd3 (53.474.537.031) 1531

Neither looks too promising!

Will post it's g3 line shortly...

[Watchman]

Naum 3.1, I chose it because I realized it's a very strong engine nobody else is using, so while it will not consider strong moves that other members find, it may find strong moves not considered...

Exactly my logic for using Deep Shredder and Deep Sjeng, others have the leading engines on better hardware than my own so it makes sense to use something different and hope to turn up a gem

Well this is precisely what I believe is a necessity to come up with the best team effort. I am very grateful you guys are willing to do this. Having played 4 PAL Freestyles as Sebi's "analyst" (and now some corr. chess) I am thoroughly convinced that the use of multiple engines (with one you trust for the position as the main analysis tool) will reign supreme for quite some time to come over the single engine/super computer combo.

The reason I asked... actually I was going to suggest that since we are all using different engines to tag the line with at least engine name, and possibly depth. More or less like an aircraft giving a position fix.

One more thing... I am leery to post stuff like my last "I see at 24..." as I don't want to sound critical, or like a "gotcha!" It's a "hey I see this, does that effect your analysis, or no? A fwiw / for what it's worth type thing. I certainly hope if you review a line I post, you will do the same. All in the spirit of collaboration to come up with what is hopefully the best move/line (and hammer the DPRF ).

[Wardy]

Well this is precisely what I believe is a necessity to come up with the best team effort. I am very grateful you guys are willing to do this. Having played 4 PAL Freestyles as Sebi's "analyst" (and now some corr. chess) I am thoroughly convinced that the use of multiple engines (with one you trust for the position as the main analysis tool) will reign supreme for quite some time to come over the single engine/super computer combo.

The reason I asked... actually I was going to suggest that since we are all using different engines to tag the line with at least engine name, and possibly depth. More or less like an aircraft giving a position fix.

One more thing... I am leery to post stuff like my last "I see at 24..." as I don't want to sound critical, or like a "gotcha!" It's a "hey I see this, does that effect your analysis, or no? A fwiw / for what it's worth type thing. I certainly hope if you review a line I post, you will do the same. All in the spirit of collaboration to come up with what is hopefully the best move/line (and hammer the DPRF ).

By all means give me alternatives to try as I'm not that strong a player and might miss a suitable alternative to look at, no problem at all

Here is the line that Deep Sjeng looked at

19. g3 Rc8 20. e5 Nd5 21. Rb1 Nb6

then it's analysis at this point was

Engine: Deep Sjeng 3.0 (1024 MB)
by Gian-Carlo Pascutto

21/61 -0.48 22.Ba6 Qa7 23.Bd3 Qa2 24.h4 Nc4 25.Rd1 Nxd2 26.Nxd2 Bxb4 27.Nc4 Qxe2 28.Bxe2 Bc5 29.h5 Ne7 30.Nb3 Bd5 31.Nxc5 Rxc5 32.Nb6 Rc7 33.f4 f6 34.Kf2 fxe5 (3.902.720.923) 1426

I'm going to look at Harveys drawing line now....

[Dark Horse]

Here is I think a safe line which leads to a draw

1... Rc8 2. Re1 d5 3. exd5 Bxd5 4. b5 Qb6 5. Rc1 Rxc1+ 6. Bxc1 Bc5 7. Bb2 Bxf3
8. Nxf3 Ng4 9. Bxg6 hxg6 10. Kg2 Nxf2 11. Ng5 Qb7+ 12. Qf3 *

but please check it!

Rybka had 23.Rd1 (instead of Rc1 which is move 5 in your line) but I am sliding forward to check this

[Dark Horse]

have we analysed 19.g3 d5 ?

[Watchman]

What do you have for Naum's 20...N4e5 ?

I overlooked it, and it appears to be just as good (if not better).

I think maybe: 21.Bb1 Rc8 22.Rxc8+ Qxc8 23.Nxe5 Nxe5 24.Nb3 Bc6 25.f4 Ba4 26.Nd4 Nc6 27.Nxc6 Qxc6

but am also looking at 26.fxe5 Bxb3 27.Qd3 Bc4 28.Qd4 Bd8 29.Be3 h6 30.Qc5 Qa6 31.Qa7 Bg5 32.Bd4 Qc6 33.Qc5

The second one seems a little safer. Rybka evals rise a little initially, but then come back down (approx. -0.20) by 33.

Edit: If 33...Bd2 (e.g.) the queens come off, 35. Bc5; we have doubled pawn but it appears drawn at that point

[Dark Horse]

I believe my Rybka had 20...N4e5 in that line