Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Test Positions / Morozevich v. Vachier-Lagrave, Biel 2009, ChessCafe analysis
- - By CSullivan (**) [us] Date 2010-06-15 17:36
The May 22, 2010 "Informant" column at ChessCafe.com contains analysis regarding Morozevich vs. Vachier-Lagrave from Biel 2009.  Quoting analysis by Vachier-Lagrave, the column indicates an approximately equal game had Black played 17...Bb7, creating this position:
r3kb1r/1b1n2p1/p3Nn1p/3Pp3/1p4PP/3QBP2/qPP5/2KR1B1R w kq -

However, this position is a forced win for White.

Using 1 cpu on my Q6600 (3GHz) computer  (using 1 GB for the transposition table),  Rybka3 (64-bit) shows 18.g5 (+0.35) as best at 15 plies (22 minutes).  It fails high at 43, 46, 50, and 55 minutes before finally giving
18.Qg6+ Ke7 19.g5 Nxd5 20.Bc5+ Nxc5 21.Nxc5 Qa1+ 22.Kd2 Nf4 23.Qb6 Rd8+ 24.Qxd8+ Kxd8 25.Nxb7+ Kc7 26.Rxa1 Kxb7 27.Bxa6+ ...
+-    (2.74)    Depth: 16   01:17:58    442mN

Usually, Zappa cannot keep up with Rybka3.  However, in this case, using 1 cpu, Zappa Mexico II (64-bit) solved this puzzle in less than 21 minutes!

Since I do not yet own Rybka 4 (waiting/hoping for bug fixes!), I would be most curious to see what the new Rybka says.
Parent - - By CSullivan (**) [us] Date 2010-06-15 18:58
Using Rybka3 1-cpu with only 256MB (instead of 1GB) of hash, the result is greatly improved: the "correct" variation is found on the 15th iteration in 00:22:23 (+2.72), 126mN
Parent - - By Fulcrum2000 (****) [nl] Date 2010-06-15 20:06
My Rybka4 x64, large pages enabled, 512MB hash finds it in
2:54, with score +0.45 (depth 16)
3:03, score +0.85 (still depth 16)
3:27, score +1.65 (still depth 16)
5:26, score +2.43 (still depth 16)

CPU = Q6600 running @ ~2.9 Ghz
Parent - - By CSullivan (**) [us] Date 2010-06-16 00:17
Thanks, Fulcrum2000. 
At 5:26, did Rybka4 display the complete variation, or was it still failing high?
Also, were you using 1 cpu or all 4?  If that was only 1 cpu, then EXCELLENT result for Rybka4.  Zappa using all 4 cpu's displayed the complete variation at 4 minutes, 20 seconds (1GB hash, Q6600@3GHz).
Charles
Parent - By Fulcrum2000 (****) [nl] Date 2010-06-16 17:14

> At 5:26, did Rybka4 display the complete variation, or was it still failing high?


I think this was the full, not 100% sure.

I used 4 cores.
Parent - - By yanquis1972 (****) [us] Date 2010-06-16 21:39
MP searches are random & can be extremely lucky (and sometimes unlucky) relative to 1cpu searches (meaning with a few tries you might get similar results with R3, who knows). so far i'm @ d18 with R4x64 1024MB hash 1cpu@3ghz, closing in on 30 minutes, & it's actuallly liking g5 more & more. 

i am also curious about large pages in SMP vs not using them...i'd like to run some tests to see if LP don't yield disproportionately fast results but it's difficult when so much as clearing hash kills them & forces a reboot.  this is the second time i've seen someone w/ large pages results on first runs at much lower depths than they 'should'. with the first, in about a dozen runs w/out large pages i got consistent results; with LP i was able to reproduce a result on the first or second run. 

of course as i said we don't know if LP was a factor; it's more probably simply MP luck -- i will post full R4 output after an hour, but it has g5 at 0.00 up until d18 when it begins climbing. that suggests a broader search could easily switch to something else @ lower depth.
Parent - - By yanquis1972 (****) [us] Date 2010-06-16 22:44
Analysis by Rybka 4 x64: (3ghz, 1GB hash)

1.Nc7+ Kf7 2.Nxa8 Bxa8 3.Qxa6 Qxa6 4.Bxa6 Nxd5 5.Rhe1 Bc5 6.Bc4 Bxe3+ 7.Rxe3 Ke6 8.Red3 N7f6
  =/+  (-0.29)   Depth: 6   00:00:00  10kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 Nxd5 3.gxh6
  =  (-0.07)   Depth: 6   00:00:00  14kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 Nxd5 3.gxh6
  =  (0.08)   Depth: 6   00:00:00  15kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nxf8 Rxf8 4.hxg5 Nxd5 5.fxe4 N5b6 6.Rh7
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 6   00:00:00  18kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nxf8 Rxf8 4.hxg5 Nxd5 5.fxe4 N5b6 6.Bh3 Qa1+ 7.Kd2 Qa4 8.Kc1 Qa1+ 9.Kd2 Qa4 10.Kc1 Qa1+ 11.Kd2 Qa4 12.Kc1 Qa1+ 13.Kd2 Qa4 14.Kc1 Qa1+ 15.Kd2 Qa4 16.Kc1
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 7   00:00:00  36kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nxf8 Rxf8 4.hxg5 Nxd5 5.fxe4 N5b6 6.Bh3 Qa1+ 7.Kd2 Qa4 8.Kc1 Qa1+ 9.Kd2 Qa4 10.Kc1 Qa1+ 11.Kd2 Qa4 12.Kc1 Qa1+ 13.Kd2 Qa4 14.Kc1 Qa1+ 15.Kd2 Qa4 16.Kc1
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 8   00:00:00  66kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nxf8 Rxf8 4.hxg5 Nxd5 5.fxe4 N5b6 6.Bh3 Qa1+ 7.Kd2 Qa4 8.b3 Qa3 9.Bxd7+ Nxd7 10.Ra1
  =  (0.12)   Depth: 9   00:00:01  102kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+
  +/=  (0.27)   Depth: 9   00:00:01  179kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Ke8 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Rhg1 Rxh4 8.Bxg5 Rh7 9.fxe4 Rc8 10.Qe5+ Kd7 11.b3 Re8 12.Qf5+
  =  (0.07)   Depth: 9   00:00:04  469kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Ke8 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Rhg1 Rxh4 8.Bxg5 Rh7 9.fxe4 Rc8 10.Qe5+ Kd7 11.b3 Re8 12.Qf5+
  =  (0.07)   Depth: 10   00:00:04  514kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Ke8 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Rhg1 Rxh4 8.Bxg5 Rh7 9.fxe4 Rc8 10.Qe5+ Kd7 11.b3 Re8 12.Qf5+
  =  (0.19)   Depth: 11   00:00:09  1043kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Ke8 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Rhg1 exf3 8.hxg5 N6d7 9.Kb1 Rc8 10.b3 Qc5 11.Qxg7 Rh7 12.Qxh7 Nxh7 13.Bxc5 Nxc5 14.Rde1+ Kd7
  =  (0.19)   Depth: 11   00:00:12  1367kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Qd4 Kxc7 4.d6+ Kb8 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Qxb4 Ne5 7.Qb6 Qa1+ 8.Kd2 Nxf3+ 9.Ke2
  =  (0.19)   Depth: 12   00:00:18  2109kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Qd4 Kxc7 4.d6+ Kb8 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Qxb4 Ne5 7.Qb6
  +/=  (0.31)   Depth: 13   00:00:27  3028kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Qd4 Kxc7 4.d6+ Kd8 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Qxb4 Bc6 7.Qc3 Bb5 8.fxe4 Ke8 9.Rg1 Bxf1 10.Rgxf1 Qa1+ 11.Kd2 Qa4 12.b3 Qxe4 13.Kc1 Kf7 14.Kb1 Re8 15.Qc7 Qe6
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 13   00:00:43  5301kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Qd4 Kxc7 4.d6+ Kd8 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Qxb4 Bc6 7.Qc3 Bb5 8.fxe4 Ke8 9.Rg1 Bxf1 10.Rgxf1 Rg8 11.Rxf6 Nxf6 12.Qxf6 Rd8 13.Bc5 Qa1+ 14.Kd2 Qa5+ 15.Kc1 Qa1+ 16.Kd2
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 14   00:01:02  7812kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Qd4 Kxc7 4.d6+ Kd8 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Qxb4 Bc6 7.Qc3 Bb5 8.fxe4 Ke8 9.Rg1 Bxf1 10.Rgxf1 Rg8 11.Rxf6 Nxf6 12.Qxf6 Rd8 13.Bc5 Qa1+ 14.Kd2 Qa5+ 15.Kc1 Qa1+ 16.Kd2
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 15   00:01:25  10982kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Qd4 Kxc7 4.d6+ Kd8 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Qxb4 Bc6 7.Qc3 Bb5 8.fxe4 Ke8 9.Rg1 Bxf1 10.Rgxf1 Rg8 11.Rxf6 Nxf6 12.Qxf6 Rd8 13.Bc5 Qa1+ 14.Kd2 Qa5+ 15.Kc1 Qa1+ 16.Kd2
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 16   00:02:14  17550kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Qd4 Kxc7 4.d6+ Kd8 5.gxf6 gxf6 6.Qxb4 Bc6 7.Qc3 Bb5 8.Bxb5 axb5 9.Bb6+ Ke8 10.Rhe1 h5 11.Qc6 Bh6+ 12.Be3 Qa1+ 13.Kd2 Qa5+ 14.Kc1 Qa1+ 15.Kd2 Qa5+ 16.Kc1
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 17   00:04:21  34333kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Ne6+ Kc8 4.Qd4
  =  (0.12)   Depth: 18   00:08:43  69666kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Ne6+ Kc8 4.Qd4
  +/=  (0.27)   Depth: 18   00:09:52  75934kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Ne6+ Ke8 4.Qd4 hxg5 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Kb1 gxh4 8.Rhg1 Rh7 9.fxe4 Rc8 10.Qe5+ Kd7 11.Rxg7+ Rxg7 12.Qxf6 Re7 13.d6
  +/=  (0.67)   Depth: 18   00:23:05  158mN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Ne6+ Ke8 4.Qd4 hxg5 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Rhg1 Rxh4 8.Bxg5 Rh7 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Kb1 Rc8 11.Qxe4+ Re7 12.Qd3 Rxc4 13.Qxc4 Qb5 14.Qd4 b3 15.cxb3 Nd7 16.b4
  +/=  (0.69)   Depth: 18   00:39:24  268mN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kd8 3.Ne6+ Ke8 4.Qd4 hxg5 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Rhg1 Rxh4 8.Bxg5 Rh7 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Kb1 Rc8 11.Qxe4+ Re7 12.Qd3 Rxc4 13.Qxc4 Qb5 14.Qd4 b3 15.cxb3 Re5 16.f4
  +/-  (0.81)   Depth: 19   01:16:25  541mN

so slower than R3, but interestingly it seems to think g5 is actually a very strong move & the position isn't equal even without the 'killer' Qg6+.

i'll do a few short MP runs & then one or two with large pages a bit later to experiment a a little more. i'm also inclined to run a 1cpu test in a different GUI because i've seen different results with R4 1cpu in different GUIs (even with same hash), and/or DR4 limited to one 1cpu has at least seemed to present different results as well.

as i said on another thread, it's an odd engine.
Parent - - By CSullivan (**) [us] Date 2010-06-17 03:22

> MP searches are random & can be extremely lucky (and sometimes unlucky)


Yes, and that is why I was trying to get some Rybka 4 1-cpu results.  But your 4-cpu output is very interesting...  I suspect Rybka 4 is only slightly improved at mating attacks, otherwise it would certainly find the winning line in less than 1 hour!
Parent - - By yanquis1972 (****) [us] Date 2010-06-17 03:24
yes, Qg6 seems like an obvious move you'd look at as a human; i'll try hiarcs & junior later (though i've found junior relatively unremarkable at king attacks surprisingly)

it certainly does appear that this is yet another tactical position where R3 defeats R4.
Parent - By BigBen (****) Date 2010-06-17 06:42 Edited 2010-06-17 06:44
New game
r3kb1r/1b1n2p1/p3Nn1p/3Pp3/1p4PP/3QBP2/qPP5/2KR1B1R w kq - 0 1


Analysis by Stockfish 1.7.1 JA 64bit:

1.Qg6+ Ke7 2.g5 Nxd5 3.Bc5+ Nxc5 4.Nxc5 Qa1+ 5.Kd2 Nf4 6.Qb6
+/=  (0.64 ++)    Depth: 20   00:00:34  178mN

New game
r3kb1r/1b1n2p1/p3Nn1p/3Pp3/1p4PP/3QBP2/qPP5/2KR1B1R w kq - 0 1


Analysis by Stockfish 1.7.1 JA 64bit:

1.Qg6+ Ke7 2.g5 Bxd5 3.gxf6+ gxf6 4.Nc7 Bxf3 5.Bh3 Qa1+ 6.Kd2 Qxb2 7.Ke1 Bxd1 8.Nd5+ Kd6 9.Nxf6 Bxc2 10.Ne8+ Kd5 11.Nc7+ Kc4 12.Qf7+ Kc3 13.Bd2+
+-  (2.02 ++)    Depth: 21   00:01:01  611mN
Parent - - By yanquis1972 (****) [us] Date 2010-06-17 09:43
actually re concrete mating attacks, that is one place i've definitely noticed R4 is a leap up from R3. it's much, much quicker to solve for mate.

here is my LP output, i am able to duplicate d16. if anyone wants to run 4 CPU minus LP i am curious if you can also get d16 and if so, how many runs it takes to get there (clear hash b/w runs obviously). a 3+ ply jump over the expected result is quite high & considering both I & the other poster got it on presumably first runs w/ large pages enabled is interesting to me. more likely to be the 4 CPUs and some coincidence, but i'm curious.

Analysis by Deep Rybka 4 x64 AN:

1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kf7 4.Nxa8 Bxa8
  +/=  (0.32 ++)   Depth: 6   00:00:00  8kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Kc8 5.fxe4 gxh4 6.Nxf8 Rxf8 7.Qxb4 Qa1+
  =  (0.21)   Depth: 6   00:00:00  10kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Kc8 5.fxe4 gxh4 6.Nxf8 Rxf8 7.Qxb4 Qa1+ 8.Kd2
  +/=  (0.33 ++)   Depth: 7   00:00:00  21kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Kc8 5.fxe4 gxh4 6.Nxf8 Rxf8 7.Qxb4 Ng4 8.Qc3+
  +/=  (0.33)   Depth: 7   00:00:00  21kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Kc8 5.Nxf8 Rxf8 6.hxg5 Nxd5 7.fxe4
  +/=  (0.45 ++)   Depth: 8   00:00:00  54kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Ke8 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.fxe4 Rxh4 7.Rxh4 gxh4 8.Qxb4 Bc8 9.Be2 Ng6 10.Rg1 a5
  =  (0.20)   Depth: 8   00:00:00  80kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Ke8[] 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Bxg5 N8d7 8.fxe4 Qb6 9.Bf4 Nh5 10.Be5 Qxd4 11.Bxd4 Rc8 12.Be2
  =  (0.14)   Depth: 9   00:00:01  389kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Ke8 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Rhg1 exf3 8.hxg5 N6d7 9.Bf2 Rh2 10.Kb1 Kd8 11.Bg3 Rg2 12.Rxg2 fxg2 13.Qxg7
  =  (0.15)   Depth: 10   00:00:02  560kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kd8 4.Ne6+ Ke8 5.Nxf8 Nxf8 6.Bc4 Qa5 7.Rhg1 exf3 8.hxg5 N6d7 9.Bf2 Rh2 10.Kb1 Kd8 11.Bg3 Rg2 12.Rxg2 fxg2 13.Qxg7
  =  (0.15)   Depth: 11   00:00:04  1530kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 b3 3.gxf6 bxc2 4.Nc7+ Kf7 5.Kxc2 Bc5 6.Qxe4 Rhe8 7.Bc4 Rxe4 8.Bxa2 Rxe3 9.Nxa8 Bxa8 10.fxg7 Kxg7 11.Rhg1+ Kf7 12.Rgf1 Re2+ 13.Rd2 Re8 14.d6+ Kf6 15.Bd5 Rc8 16.Bc4
  =  (0.07)   Depth: 12   00:00:12  4345kN
1.g5 e4 2.Nc7+ Kf7 3.Qc4 Qxc4 4.Bxc4 Ne5 5.Ba2 Rd8 6.d6+ Kg6 7.gxf6 exf3 8.fxg7 Bxg7 9.Ne6
  =  (0.07)   Depth: 13   00:00:14  4920kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 b3 3.gxf6 bxc2 4.Nc7+ Kf7 5.Kxc2 Bc5 6.Qxe4 Rhe8 7.Bc4 Rxe4 8.Bxa2 Rxe3 9.Nxa8 Bxa8 10.fxg7 Kxg7 11.Rhg1+ Kf7 12.Rgf1 Re2+ 13.Rd2 Re8 14.d6+ Kf6 15.Bd5 Rc8 16.Bc4
  =  (0.19 ++)   Depth: 14   00:00:17  5694kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kf7 4.d6 Qa1+ 5.Kd2[] Qa5 6.Nxa8 Ne5 7.Qb6 Nxf3+ 8.Ke2[] Qxb6 9.Nxb6 gxh4 10.Bc5 g5 11.Bxb4 g4 12.Bc3 Bc6 13.d7 Be7 14.Nc8 Bxd7 15.Nxe7 Bb5+ 16.Ke3
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 14   00:00:27  9311kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kf7 4.d6 Qa1+ 5.Kd2[] Qa5 6.Nxa8 Ne5 7.Qb6 Nxf3+ 8.Ke2[] Qxb6[] 9.Nxb6 gxh4[] 10.Bc5 g5 11.Bxb4 g4 12.Bc3 Bc6 13.d7 Be7 14.Nc8 Rd8 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.Bxf6+
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 15   00:00:37  13126kN
1.g5 e4 2.Qd4 hxg5 3.Nc7+ Kf7 4.d6 Qa1+ 5.Kd2[] Qa5 6.Nxa8 Ne5 7.Qb6 Nxf3+ 8.Ke2[] Qxb6[] 9.Nxb6 gxh4[] 10.Bc5 g5 11.Bxb4 g4 12.Bc3 Bc6 13.d7 Be7 14.Nc8 Rd8 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.Bxf6+
  =  (0.00)   Depth: 16   00:00:57  21630kN
1.Qg6+ Ke7[] 2.g5 Nxd5 3.Bc5+ Nxc5[] 4.Nxc5 Bc8 5.Nb3 Be6 6.Bc4 Nf4 7.Qe4 hxg5 8.Qxa8 Bxc4 9.Qb7+ Kf6 10.hxg5+ Kxg5 11.Rxh8 Ne2+ 12.Kd2 Qxb2 13.Ke1 Nf4 14.Rxf8 Ng6 15.Qxg7 Qxc2 16.Qf6+
  =  (0.12 ++)   Depth: 16
  00:01:23  31009kN
1.Qg6+ Ke7[] 2.g5 Bxd5 3.gxf6+[] gxf6 4.Nc7 Bxf3 5.Bg2 Bxg2 6.Qxg2 Rd8 7.Qc6 Nb8 8.Nd5+[] Rxd5 9.Qxd5[] Qxd5 10.Rxd5[] Nc6 11.Rhd1 Ke6 12.Rd7 Be7 13.Rc7 Nb8 14.Rb7 h5 15.Rb6+ Kf5 16.Rg1
  +/=  (0.27 ++)   Depth: 16   00:02:51  63444kN
1.Qg6+ Ke7[] 2.g5[] Nxd5 3.Bc5+ Nxc5[] 4.Nxc5 Qa1+ 5.Kd2[] Nf4 6.Qb6[] Rd8+ 7.Qxd8+[] Kxd8 8.Nxb7+[] Kc7 9.Rxa1[] Kxb7 10.Bxa6+ Kc6 11.Bd3 Bc5 12.Rhe1 Nxd3 13.cxd3 hxg5 14.hxg5
  +/=  (0.67 ++)   Depth: 16   00:03:24  74395kN
1.Qg6+ Ke7[] 2.g5[]
  +-  (1.47 ++)   Depth: 16   00:04:22  92109kN
1.Qg6+ Ke7[] 2.g5 Qa1+ 3.Kd2[] Qxd1+ 4.Kxd1[] hxg5 5.Nxf8[] Raxf8 6.Bxg5 Bxd5 7.Kc1 Rhg8 8.Bxa6 Nc5 9.Rd1 Be6 10.Be2 Ra8 11.Be3 Ncd7 12.f4 b3 13.fxe5 Ra1+ 14.Kd2 Nxe5 15.Bc5+ Kd7 16.Qg2
  +-  (2.78)   Depth: 16   00:09:06  188mN, tb=3
Parent - By CSullivan (**) [us] Date 2010-06-17 15:07

> 1.Qg6+ Ke7[] 2.g5 Qa1+ 3.Kd2[] Qxd1+ 4.Kxd1[] hxg5 5.Nxf8[] Raxf8 6.Bxg5 Bxd5 7.Kc1 Rhg8 8.Bxa6 Nc5 9.Rd1 Be6 10.Be2 Ra8 11.Be3 Ncd7 12.f4 b3 13.fxe5 Ra1+ 14.Kd2 Nxe5 15.Bc5+ > Kd7 16.Qg2
+-  (2.78)   Depth: 16   00:09:06  188mN, tb=3


Now that's much more impressive!  Thanks.
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Test Positions / Morozevich v. Vachier-Lagrave, Biel 2009, ChessCafe analysis

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill