Move 36 discussion: Everyone vs stockfish

MooMoo2 · 2016-05-10, 02:39

The poll for move 36 just closed, and the most popular move was Rxb6. Stockfish responded with 35...Raxa2, and the FEN is:
7k/8/1R3p2/4nN1p/8/6P1/r1r4P/5RK1 w - - 0 36

Game so far: 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 Nf6 5. exd5 exd5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O Be7 9. dxc5 Nxc5 10. Nb3 Nce4 11. Nfd4 O-O 12. Nf5 Re8 13. Nxe7+ Rxe7 14. f3 Nd6 15. Bg5 Nc4 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17. Qd4 Qb6 18. Qxb6 axb6 19. Rfd1 Re5 20. f4 Re2 21. Nd4 Re4 22. Nf5 Nxb2 23. Rxd5 Rxf4 24. g3 Rc4 25. Nh6+ Kg7 26. Nf5+ Kf8 27. Rd7 Rxc2 28. Nh6 Kg7 29. Nf5+ Kg6 30. Nh4+ Kg7 31. Nf5+ Kh8 32. Rxf7 Nd3 33. Rxb7 Ne5 34. Rf1 h5 35. Rxb6 Raxa2

gd_barnes · 2016-05-10, 04:29

36. Rb8+ with a follow-up as discussed in the first paragraph here:
http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.ph...68&postcount=3

We will end up with effectively the same position but have our rook on the 7th instead of 6th rank allowing for future tempo gains as a result of mate threats in some variations. Since we plan to do Nh4 eventually anyway we will still have an attack on the f6 pawn with our f-rook vs. b-rook so removing the attack on that pawn doesn't make any difference.

Brian-E · 2016-05-10, 12:47

Yes, that looks good. If Black tries to bring the king pugnaciously forward (aiming to put the king on h3 and hoping to mate us) it finds itself in a mating net or at least in serious trouble: 36.Rb8+ Kh7 37.Rb7+ Kg6? 38.Nh4+ Kg5 39.h3.

Another benefit of those initial rook checks is that we will see whether SF is still playing for a win or whether it will allow repeat position 36.Rb8+ Kh7 37.Rb7+ Kh8 38.Rb8+ etc.

If sufficient others agree and we do end up playing these rook checks, we could offer the conditional sequence to speed things up "36.Rb8+ and if 36...Kh7 37.Rb7+". MooMoo2, for the poll options, could we perhaps have one option "36.Rb8+ and if 36...Kh7 then 37.Rb7+", another option "36.Rb8+ without conditional move", and further move options depending on what other people say?

EDIT: I'm being typically unobservant once again. 36.Rb8+ Kh7 37.Rb7+ Kg6? would be pugnacious indeed. 38.Rg7# is somewhat more convincing than what I wrote above. Hehe.

WMHalsdorf · 2016-05-10, 12:55

I think we all will be in agreement for the next several moves.

gd_barnes · 2016-05-10, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

If sufficient others agree and we do end up playing these rook checks, we could offer the conditional sequence to speed things up "36.Rb8+ and if 36...Kh7 37.Rb7+". MooMoo2, for the poll options, could we perhaps have one option "36.Rb8+ and if 36...Kh7 then 37.Rb7+", another option "36.Rb8+ without conditional move", and further move options depending on what other people say?

I am strongly in favor of conditional if-then moves for all obvious move replies throughout the game to speed things along. I had brought this up when the teams were playing one another but most others disagreed and since I wasn't playing I didn't have much more that I could say about the matter.

Here, considering that 36...Kh7 is the only reasonable reply (the other being 36...Rc8 dropping a rook), the conditional if-then makes the most sense of all.

MooMoo2 · 2016-05-10, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

If sufficient others agree and we do end up playing these rook checks, we could offer the conditional sequence to speed things up "36.Rb8+ and if 36...Kh7 37.Rb7+". MooMoo2, for the poll options, could we perhaps have one option "36.Rb8+ and if 36...Kh7 then 37.Rb7+", another option "36.Rb8+ without conditional move", and further move options depending on what other people say?

Fine with me

Brian-E · 2016-05-10, 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

I am strongly in favor of conditional if-then moves for all obvious move replies throughout the game to speed things along. I had brought this up when the teams were playing one another but most others disagreed and since I wasn't playing I didn't have much more that I could say about the matter.

Here, considering that 36...Kh7 is the only reasonable reply (the other being 36...Rc8 dropping a rook), the conditional if-then makes the most sense of all.

Yep, I remember. And I was, and still am, one of those who is pretty negative in general about conditional moves. But this case is a very strong candidate.

2016-05-11, 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by WMHalsdorf

I think we all will be in agreement for the next several moves.

I am in agreement with that (is this a double entendre?).

Brian-E · 2016-05-11, 09:14

Well, could we have the reasonable 36.Nh4 as a poll option too just in case there is disagreement after all?

MooMoo2 · 2016-05-12, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Well, could we have the reasonable 36.Nh4 as a poll option too just in case there is disagreement after all?

You got it: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=21299

2016-05-10, 02:39	#1
MooMoo2 "Michael Kwok" Mar 2006 2234₈ Posts	Move 36 discussion: Everyone vs stockfish The poll for move 36 just closed, and the most popular move was Rxb6. Stockfish responded with 35...Raxa2, and the FEN is: 7k/8/1R3p2/4nN1p/8/6P1/r1r4P/5RK1 w - - 0 36 Game so far: 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 Nf6 5. exd5 exd5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O Be7 9. dxc5 Nxc5 10. Nb3 Nce4 11. Nfd4 O-O 12. Nf5 Re8 13. Nxe7+ Rxe7 14. f3 Nd6 15. Bg5 Nc4 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17. Qd4 Qb6 18. Qxb6 axb6 19. Rfd1 Re5 20. f4 Re2 21. Nd4 Re4 22. Nf5 Nxb2 23. Rxd5 Rxf4 24. g3 Rc4 25. Nh6+ Kg7 26. Nf5+ Kf8 27. Rd7 Rxc2 28. Nh6 Kg7 29. Nf5+ Kg6 30. Nh4+ Kg7 31. Nf5+ Kh8 32. Rxf7 Nd3 33. Rxb7 Ne5 34. Rf1 h5 35. Rxb6 Raxa2 Attached Thumbnails

2016-05-10, 04:29	#2
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 5·2,459 Posts	36. Rb8+ with a follow-up as discussed in the first paragraph here: http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.ph...68&postcount=3 We will end up with effectively the same position but have our rook on the 7th instead of 6th rank allowing for future tempo gains as a result of mate threats in some variations. Since we plan to do Nh4 eventually anyway we will still have an attack on the f6 pawn with our f-rook vs. b-rook so removing the attack on that pawn doesn't make any difference. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2016-05-10 at 04:44

2016-05-10, 12:47	#3
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 2·11·149 Posts	Yes, that looks good. If Black tries to bring the king pugnaciously forward (aiming to put the king on h3 and hoping to mate us) it finds itself in a mating net or at least in serious trouble: 36.Rb8+ Kh7 37.Rb7+ Kg6? 38.Nh4+ Kg5 39.h3. Another benefit of those initial rook checks is that we will see whether SF is still playing for a win or whether it will allow repeat position 36.Rb8+ Kh7 37.Rb7+ Kh8 38.Rb8+ etc. If sufficient others agree and we do end up playing these rook checks, we could offer the conditional sequence to speed things up "36.Rb8+ and if 36...Kh7 37.Rb7+". MooMoo2, for the poll options, could we perhaps have one option "36.Rb8+ and if 36...Kh7 then 37.Rb7+", another option "36.Rb8+ without conditional move", and further move options depending on what other people say? EDIT: I'm being typically unobservant once again. 36.Rb8+ Kh7 37.Rb7+ Kg6? would be pugnacious indeed. 38.Rg7# is somewhat more convincing than what I wrote above. Hehe. Last fiddled with by Brian-E on 2016-05-10 at 13:03

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stockfish-assisted game vs Stockfish, move 8 discussion	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	11	2016-10-21 15:47
Move 33 discussion: Everyone vs stockfish	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	8	2016-04-23 14:07
Move 30 discussion: Everyone vs stockfish	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	2	2016-04-03 19:55
Move 29 discussion: Everyone vs stockfish	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	8	2016-03-29 10:27
Move 5 discussion: Everyone vs stockfish	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	5	2015-11-13 13:39

2016-05-10, 12:55	#4
WMHalsdorf Feb 2005 Bristol, CT 201₁₆ Posts	I think we all will be in agreement for the next several moves.

2016-05-11, 09:14	#9
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 2×11×149 Posts	Well, could we have the reasonable 36.Nh4 as a poll option too just in case there is disagreement after all?