Engine-assisted game vs Stockfish, move 22 discussion

[LaurV]

Yes, it is open, and we took your post (and Carnivore's) as a good joke. No harm done. We are still struggling, but we are short of time... We would need an additional queen here...

Edit: agree with the break (we were very busy at job, lots of work, and very tired at home, in the last days, we have to finish 3 projects before we go to Australia on Feb.15).

[Till]

Originally Posted by LaurV

Yes, it is open, and we took your post (and Carnivore's) as a good joke.

Good to hear. Probably you will demonstrate that it was a joke. I'm looking forward to the result

[MooMoo2]

Originally Posted by LaurV

Yes, it is open, and we took your post (and Carnivore's) as a good joke. No harm done. We are still struggling, but we are short of time... We would need an additional queen here...

Edit: agree with the break (we were very busy at job, lots of work, and very tired at home, in the last days, we have to finish 3 projects before we go to Australia on Feb.15).

Thanks for the input! The poll will be posted 14 days from now instead of today.

Now let's get some good analysis in

[gd_barnes]

Excellent. I'm happy to hear about the break.

[The Carnivore]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

If some people want to put multiple cores together and run a strong engine as black against SF as white we might have a chance.

I fired up Fire 5. Pun intended.

It's the next strongest engine behind SF, Houdini, and Komodo. It reached 44 ply after a day of thinking. The line it favors is:

22...Bxd5 23. Qxd5 Qb6+ 24. Kh1 Bg7 25. Qxb5 Rb8 26. Qxb6 Rxb6 27. Ra2 Rfb8 Score: 0.00

This line and 0.00 score has remained the same from depth 37-44. Previously, at depths 10-25, Bg7 was leading with a score that favored white by 0.1 pawns.

To summarize, here are the evaluations we have so far:

Houdini 5, 40 ply: 22. ... Bxd5 23.Qxd5 Qb6+ 24.Kh1 Bg7 25.Qxd6 Rcd8. Score: 0.00
Fire 5, 44 ply: 22...Bxd5 23. Qxd5 Qb6+ 24. Kh1 Bg7 25. Qxb5 Rb8 26. Qxb6 Rxb6 27. Ra2 Rfb8 Score: 0.00
Komodo 10, 37 ply: 22...Bxd5 23. Qxd5 Qb6+ 24. Kh1 Bg7 25. Qxb5 Rb8 26. Qxb6 Rxb6 27. Ra2 Rfb8 28. b4 Bxc3 29. b5 Nd4 30. Nxd4 Bxd4. Score: 0.00

I subtracted 2 ply from Komodo's eval since the 39 ply depth was for move 21, not move 22. We may want to consider exf3 or Bg7 if Bxd5 is looking to be a forced draw. I recall reading earlier that we should keep the bishop pair to have a chance of winning, but the pair's gone if we play 22...Bxd5 23. Qxd5.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by Till

I am Till and I think that it's a bit harsh to interprete my post as "negative". All I did was posting my personal point of view about the current game position and a question. Admittedly I do not contribute very often. But is this game not open for anybody, even for casual contributors?

You stated that "this looks like a lost game" even those the position is at least a draw for black. That makes no sense given all Engine analysis. How else are we to interpret it other than trying to negatively undermine our performance? I'm all for people contributing frequently or infrequently. Just do not state something blatantly false without backing it up with good reasoning.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by The Carnivore

I subtracted 2 ply from Komodo's eval since the 39 ply depth was for move 21, not move 22. We may want to consider exf3 or Bg7 if Bxd5 is looking to be a forced draw. I recall reading earlier that we should keep the bishop pair to have a chance of winning, but the pair's gone if we play 22...Bxd5 23. Qxd5.

I feel like we have to play 22...Bxd5. Playing anything else is risking a loss IMHO. SF7 is quite a bit stronger than SF6 and MooMoo is routinely letting it search to > 50 ply.

[Till]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

You stated that "this looks like a lost game" even those the position is at least a draw for black. That makes no sense given all Engine analysis. How else are we to interpret it other than trying to negatively undermine our performance? I'm all for people contributing frequently or infrequently. Just do not state something blatantly false without backing it up with good reasoning.

Dear Mister Barnes,
I see, I see. You take this game much more serious than I do, And you are right about the following thing: I ignored all the analysis the community did before. Let me explain: I just entered the site, looked at the chessboard for a couple of minutes, and I thought: This looks very difficult. Then I posted.

What I do not like is that you qualify my comment as a kind of negative behaviour. This is truly not the case. It was an assessment, taken in a short time and maybe inaccurate, but my true opinion then.

I am not a fan of "forced draws", but if you manage to grasp a win (and send me your mail address) I will reward you with my andalusian art-work chess-board. (plus a note about the cause). It is not valuable in terms of money, but means something to me.

Have fun
Till