I bought the book Winning Chess Endings by GM Seirawan.
It features a game Cruz-Seirawan from the Olympiad of 1994.
The endgame is quite exordinary. Seirawan writes that his team mates were shocked, and thought that his 48...Ra5+ was a blunder and would lead to a draw.
It is winning however!
In the book Seirawan gives several exclamation marks to his moves after that, but Stockfish claims 54...e4 was a serious mistake, dropping the evaluation from -7.9 to -1.2 although "without comment" (hmmm ???) a few moves later it increases suddenly to -9.3 (!!).
What do you think about the Stockfish analysis ?
I seem to have read that Stockfish on Lichess takes 4 seconds per move to analyse. That might not be enough for difficult pawn endings ?
Does someone have a more extensive (chess engine) analysis available ?
Fascinating endgame by the way, a "must see" game.
Also here, with some user comments below :
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1459045
It features a game Cruz-Seirawan from the Olympiad of 1994.
The endgame is quite exordinary. Seirawan writes that his team mates were shocked, and thought that his 48...Ra5+ was a blunder and would lead to a draw.
It is winning however!
In the book Seirawan gives several exclamation marks to his moves after that, but Stockfish claims 54...e4 was a serious mistake, dropping the evaluation from -7.9 to -1.2 although "without comment" (hmmm ???) a few moves later it increases suddenly to -9.3 (!!).
What do you think about the Stockfish analysis ?
I seem to have read that Stockfish on Lichess takes 4 seconds per move to analyse. That might not be enough for difficult pawn endings ?
Does someone have a more extensive (chess engine) analysis available ?
Fascinating endgame by the way, a "must see" game.
Also here, with some user comments below :
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1459045