I’m updating a recent blog post of mine, and looking for someone with Rybka 3 who knows how to use it to analyze positions. The questions I’m looking to answer are all related to this FEN position:
r1b1k2r/2ppnpp1/p1n2q1p/1pb1p3/4P3/1BPPBN2/PP3PPP/RN1Q1RK1 b kq - 0 9
What I would like to know are the following:
What is Rybka’s first recommendation at 12 or 13 ply, 17 ply, and 20 ply, and with what numeric evaluation?
What does Rybka conclude the numeric evaluation is (at whatever ply depth, just at least 12 ply - please state ply depth) for the following candidate moves:
…Bxe3
…Ba7
…Bd6
…Bb6
…d6
The graphic position, if anyone is interested:
Credit give in my blog post to those who help - about the only reward I have to offer!
You’re using as candidate moves every legal move, except for Qd6, that doesn’t lose a piece.
You can make it easier by just looking at 9…Bxe3 and 9…d6.
9…Ba7 is a reasonable move, but the line 9…d6 10. d4 Ba7 transposes, and Black has the choice then to think about 10…Bb6.
9…Bd6 strengthens e5 but makes the piece too passive.
9…Bb6 is awful (10. Bxb6 busts up the pawns.)
Thanks for the advice. I might just do that. Didn’t realize there was a Rybka forum until you mentioned it - though it’s obvious now. Someone else just let me know that I actually do know someone locally with Rybka as well.
Pretty much true. I’m looking at every “take or defend” choice for the Bishop. I’ve already analyzed it with a Class A player.
Although my blog post was about contrasting what a weak player might do versus what the (so far almost) universal choice of computers is, I am also personally interested in the order of ranking by various programs of the essentially equal variations. For example, Bb6 is generally the computers’ third choice - only Fritz 12 places it worse than third. (Though ‘worse’ here is measured in most cases in hundredths of evaluation points.) And the ultimate conclusion I reached in the first post is that there are times when one should ignore the Oracle altogether.
