Sure no one here can beat this simple free smartphone engine!

[Milos]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

Does this engine have a name? Whats the Apk?......

Jesus. Just go to google play and download chess.com app. There is an option for matches against an engine that seems to run internally on the phone.

[Milos]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

I have no idea which engine is behind, but I played against SF fixed depth 10 and SF lost after some struggle. Than I tried SF depth 16 and it totally mopped the floor with chess.com app engine level 25.
Somehow I don't think that SF depth 16 would easily beat Carlsen or Kasparov. SF depth 16 makes on average around 2M nodes per move in opening. Around 10000 times less nodes than what Deep Blue was evaluating per move in opening.

When you say you played, you mean you opperated chess.com app at level 25, instant?

Ofc, I worked as an operator between SF running on my PC and chess.com app engine on lvl 25.

[chysiddh14]

u r playing with komodo thats very powerful ,even gm cant defeat it .

[Chessqueen]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

I have no idea which engine is behind, but I played against SF fixed depth 10 and SF lost after some struggle. Than I tried SF depth 16 and it totally mopped the floor with chess.com app engine level 25.
Somehow I don't think that SF depth 16 would easily beat Carlsen or Kasparov. SF depth 16 makes on average around 2M nodes per move in opening. Around 10000 times less nodes than what Deep Blue was evaluating per move in opening.

When you say you played, you mean you opperated chess.com app at level 25, instant?

Ofc, I worked as an operator between SF running on my PC and chess.com app engine on lvl 25.

Ha Ha Ha . of Course it has to be Komodo at Chess.com, but you can download Komodo 11 for Free and even for your android ==> https://komodochess.com/

Komodo playing at the same Depth with any engine is very hard to beat, the reason why Stockfish is stronger than Komodo is because it reaches higher Depth at the same time control, but if you set them both to reach the same Depth Komodo is the Best, because it has more chess knowledge, not because it reaches higher Nodes counts like Stockfish, which finds a better move after searching way way deeper in any given position.

[pgn][Event "Blitz:10'+5sec vs Skill 24""]
[Site "MyTown"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Komodo 13.3 64-bit"]
[Black "Stockfish"]
[Result "1-0"]
[PlyCount "86"]
[TimeControl "600+5"]

{128MB, Shredder8.ctg} 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 b6 4. Nc3 Bb7 5. Qc2 Bb4 6. e3
O-O 7. Bd3 c5 8. a3 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Bxf3 10. gxf3 g6 11. d5 e5 12. e4 Qe7 13. Bg5
Qd6 14. Rg1 Re8 15. Qd2 Nh5 16. Rg4 Kh8 17. O-O-O f6 18. Be3 Qe7 19. Bh6 a6 20.
Bc2 d6 21. Ba4 Rg8 22. Bc6 Ra7 23. Kb2 Rc8 24. Ba4 Nd7 25. Bc6 b5 26. cxb5 Nb6
27. Qe2 axb5 28. Qxb5 Rb8 29. Kc2 Rxa3 30. Rb1 Qa7 31. Kd1 Ra5 32. Qd3 Nc4 33.
Rxb8+ Qxb8 34. Qc2 g5 35. Ke2 Ra1 36. Ba4 Rb1 37. h4 Nf4+ 38. Rxf4 Rb2
39. Rxf6 39.Rxc2+ 40. Bxc2[/pgn]

[Milos]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

I have no idea which engine is behind, but I played against SF fixed depth 10 and SF lost after some struggle. Than I tried SF depth 16 and it totally mopped the floor with chess.com app engine level 25.
Somehow I don't think that SF depth 16 would easily beat Carlsen or Kasparov. SF depth 16 makes on average around 2M nodes per move in opening. Around 10000 times less nodes than what Deep Blue was evaluating per move in opening.

When you say you played, you mean you opperated chess.com app at level 25, instant?

Ofc, I worked as an operator between SF running on my PC and chess.com app engine on lvl 25.

Ha Ha Ha . of Course it has to be Komodo at Chess.com, but you can download Komodo 11 for Free and even for your android ==> https://komodochess.com/

Komodo playing at the same Depth with any engine is very hard to beat, the reason why Stockfish is stronger than Komodo is because it reaches higher Depth and at the same time control, but if you set them both to reach the same Depth Komodo is the Best, because it has more chess knowledge, not because it reaches higher Nodes counts like Stockfish, which finds a better move after searching way way deeper in any given position.

On a side a fact that you are quoting a totally wrong post, things you write about Komodo are just bunch of marketing BS that Larry is spawning. It has 0 merrit in reality.
You are just falling for it like ppl that were falling for Rybka reported numbers.
First fixed depth comparison between different engines is totally meaningless because of ton of reasons main being that they measure depth in a totally different manner.
Komodo eval is in no way supperior to SF eval, that's another unsubstantiated marketing lie spawned by Larry.
At only depth where K and SF report it in a similar fashion and where search, i.e. pruning doesn't play a role, i.e. depth 1, Komodo is not stronger than SF.
Moreover, even at fixed nodes match, there is not a single meaningful value where Komodo is stronger than SF!

[Chessqueen]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

I have no idea which engine is behind, but I played against SF fixed depth 10 and SF lost after some struggle. Than I tried SF depth 16 and it totally mopped the floor with chess.com app engine level 25.
Somehow I don't think that SF depth 16 would easily beat Carlsen or Kasparov. SF depth 16 makes on average around 2M nodes per move in opening. Around 10000 times less nodes than what Deep Blue was evaluating per move in opening.

When you say you played, you mean you opperated chess.com app at level 25, instant?

Ofc, I worked as an operator between SF running on my PC and chess.com app engine on lvl 25.

Ha Ha Ha . of Course it has to be Komodo at Chess.com, but you can download Komodo 11 for Free and even for your android ==> https://komodochess.com/

Komodo playing at the same Depth with any engine is very hard to beat, the reason why Stockfish is stronger than Komodo is because it reaches higher Depth and at the same time control, but if you set them both to reach the same Depth Komodo is the Best, because it has more chess knowledge, not because it reaches higher Nodes counts like Stockfish, which finds a better move after searching way way deeper in any given position.

On a side a fact that you are quoting a totally wrong post, things you write about Komodo are just bunch of marketing BS that Larry is spawning. It has 0 merrit in reality.
You are just falling for it like ppl that were falling for Rybka reported numbers.
First fixed depth comparison between different engines is totally meaningless because of ton of reasons main being that they measure depth in a totally different manner.
Komodo eval is in no way supperior to SF eval, that's another unsubstantiated marketing lie spawned by Larry.
At only depth where K and SF report it in a similar fashion and where search, i.e. pruning doesn't play a role, i.e. depth 1, Komodo is not stronger than SF.
Moreover, even at fixed nodes match, there is not a single meaningful value where Komodo is stronger than SF!

WOW, Mr. Milos where did you get your reasoning? For more than 3 months I have been trying to proof Mr. Larry that Komodo at certain Depth is NOT as strong as he thought and I even spent some of my own money by paying players like Jorge Samour Rated 2458 FIDE to see if he can beat Komodo with certain Odds and certain Depth, and you are accusing me of marketing for Komodo. Finally Mr. larry realized that Komodo is NOT as strong with certain Depth as he though. Here is his own statement. " It seems my estimated ratings for the levels in our Komodo readme text are too high. Maybe it's partly just a matter of getting used to playing against the computer. Based on 5' + 2" games, most fairly strong GMs struggled with what is now level 22 (9 ply), and only Hikaru beat level 23 (10 ply) I believe, and yet at 10' +5", roughly double the time limit, it looks like I should at least be playing vs. level 21 (8 ply), and I'm at least 3 classes below Hikaru in fast chess. Around 30 years ago a 6 ply search was strong enough to get a US master (2200+) rating, then equivalent to 2100 FIDE, at standard time control, and a 7 ply engine got over 2300 US (2200 FIDE). Komodo is much more selective than those engines but also has more knowledge and extensions, so it's not clear which would be stronger at 7 ply or so fixed depth. But it's obvious that Skill 20 (7 ply) would not get a 2200 FIDE rating in standard chess now, if I can beat it at 10' + 5" and I'm only around US 2300/FIDE 2200 level now. I can't really reconcile these facts. Surely standards haven't risen that much; are FIDE 2200 players really that much stronger than 30 years ago, with most people saying that FIDE ratings have INFLATED? Bottom line: we need more data on humans vs. current engines (either ones with ratings in human range or crippled levels like Komodo Skill 20 to 24)."

[Milos]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

I have no idea which engine is behind, but I played against SF fixed depth 10 and SF lost after some struggle. Than I tried SF depth 16 and it totally mopped the floor with chess.com app engine level 25.
Somehow I don't think that SF depth 16 would easily beat Carlsen or Kasparov. SF depth 16 makes on average around 2M nodes per move in opening. Around 10000 times less nodes than what Deep Blue was evaluating per move in opening.

When you say you played, you mean you opperated chess.com app at level 25, instant?

Ofc, I worked as an operator between SF running on my PC and chess.com app engine on lvl 25.

Ha Ha Ha . of Course it has to be Komodo at Chess.com, but you can download Komodo 11 for Free and even for your android ==> https://komodochess.com/

Komodo playing at the same Depth with any engine is very hard to beat, the reason why Stockfish is stronger than Komodo is because it reaches higher Depth and at the same time control, but if you set them both to reach the same Depth Komodo is the Best, because it has more chess knowledge, not because it reaches higher Nodes counts like Stockfish, which finds a better move after searching way way deeper in any given position.

On a side a fact that you are quoting a totally wrong post, things you write about Komodo are just bunch of marketing BS that Larry is spawning. It has 0 merrit in reality.
You are just falling for it like ppl that were falling for Rybka reported numbers.
First fixed depth comparison between different engines is totally meaningless because of ton of reasons main being that they measure depth in a totally different manner.
Komodo eval is in no way supperior to SF eval, that's another unsubstantiated marketing lie spawned by Larry.
At only depth where K and SF report it in a similar fashion and where search, i.e. pruning doesn't play a role, i.e. depth 1, Komodo is not stronger than SF.
Moreover, even at fixed nodes match, there is not a single meaningful value where Komodo is stronger than SF!

WOW, Milos where did you get your reasoning? for more than 3 months I have been trying to proof Mr. Larry that Komodo at certain Depth is NOT as strong as he though and I even spent some of my own money by paying players like Jorge Samour Rated 2458 FIDE to see if he can beat Komodo with certain Odds and certain Depth, and you are accusing me of marketing Komodo. Finally Mr. larry realized that Komodo is NOT as strong with certain Depth as he though. Here is his own statement. " It seems my estimated ratings for the levels in our Komodo readme text are too high. Maybe it's partly just a matter of getting used to playing against the computer. Based on 5' + 2" games, most fairly strong GMs struggled with what is now level 22 (9 ply), and only Hikaru beat level 23 (10 ply) I believe, and yet at 10' +5", roughly double the time limit, it looks like I should at least be playing vs. level 21 (8 ply), and I'm at least 3 classes below Hikaru in fast chess. Around 30 years ago a 6 ply search was strong enough to get a US master (2200+) rating, then equivalent to 2100 FIDE, at standard time control, and a 7 ply engine got over 2300 US (2200 FIDE). Komodo is much more selective than those engines but also has more knowledge and extensions, so it's not clear which would be stronger at 7 ply or so fixed depth. But it's obvious that Skill 20 (7 ply) would not get a 2200 FIDE rating in standard chess now, if I can beat it at 10' + 5" and I'm only around US 2300/FIDE 2200 level now. I can't really reconcile these facts. Surely standards haven't risen that much; are FIDE 2200 players really that much stronger than 30 years ago, with most people saying that FIDE ratings have INFLATED? Bottom line: we need more data on humans vs. current engines (either ones with ratings in human range or crippled levels like Komodo Skill 20 to 24)."

I am not saying you are doing this on purpose but that you fell, probably subconsciously, under PR influence of Larry.
Two things you need to change in your testings.
First, use GUI that can reliably play fixed depth/fixed nodes matches like Arena, since what you are using now clearly is not working.
And second, if you are testing engine vs engine, never use fixed depth (unless it is depth=1) but instead fixed nodes (ofc assuming that are nodes at least roughly reported in a similar fashion) for a rough comparison which eval is better.

[supersharp77]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

Does this engine have a name? Whats the Apk?......

***** Just go to google play and download chess.com app. There is an option for matches against an engine that seems to run internally on the phone.

Hahahaha.......With all the Android engines floating around ..why would I waste my time doing that?....lol....

[Milos]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

Does this engine have a name? Whats the Apk?......

***** Just go to google play and download chess.com app. There is an option for matches against an engine that seems to run internally on the phone.

Hahahaha.......With all the Android engines floating around ..why would I waste my time doing that?....lol....

You asked "whats the apk", so clearly you expressed interest in that engine. And now you claim you don't want to waste time. Looks to me you have no clue what you want, or are simply trolling.

[Chessqueen]

I'm sure this engine, for your pocket android, and free, is way way stronger than the monster deeper blue that beat kasparov in 1997.

I have no idea which engine is behind, but I played against SF fixed depth 10 and SF lost after some struggle. Than I tried SF depth 16 and it totally

Ha Ha Ha . of Course it has to be Komodo at Chess.com, but you can download Komodo 11 for Free and even for your android ==> https://komodochess.com/

Komodo playing at the same Depth with any engine is very hard to beat, the reason why Stockfish is stronger than Komodo is because it reaches higher Depth and at the same time control, but if you set them both to reach the same Depth Komodo is the Best, because it has more chess knowledge, not because it reaches higher Nodes counts like Stockfish, which finds a better move after searching way way deeper in any given position.

On a side a fact that you are quoting a totally wrong post, things you write about Komodo are just bunch of marketing BS that Larry is spawning. It has 0 merrit in reality.
You are just falling for it like ppl that were falling for Rybka reported numbers.
First fixed depth comparison between different engines is totally meaningless because of ton of reasons main being that they measure depth in a totally different manner.
Komodo eval is in no way supperior to SF eval, that's another unsubstantiated marketing lie spawned by Larry.
At only depth where K and SF report it in a similar fashion and where search, i.e. pruning doesn't play a role, i.e. depth 1, Komodo is not stronger than SF.
Moreover, even at fixed nodes match, there is not a single meaningful value where Komodo is stronger than SF!

WOW, Milos where did you get your reasoning? for more than 3 months I have been trying to proof Mr. Larry that Komodo at certain Depth is NOT as strong as he though and I even spent some of my own money by paying players like Jorge Samour Rated 2458 FIDE to see if he can beat Komodo with certain Odds and certain Depth, and you are accusing me of marketing Komodo. Finally Mr. larry realized that Komodo is NOT as strong with certain Depth as he though. Here is his own statement. " It seems my estimated ratings for the levels in our Komodo readme text are too high. Maybe it's partly just a matter of getting used to playing against the computer. Based on 5' + 2" games, most fairly strong GMs struggled with what is now level 22 (9 ply), and only Hikaru beat level 23 (10 ply) I believe, and yet at 10' +5", roughly double the time limit, it looks like I should at least be playing vs. level 21 (8 ply), and I'm at least 3 classes below Hikaru in fast chess. Around 30 years ago a 6 ply search was strong enough to get a US master (2200+) rating, then equivalent to 2100 FIDE, at standard time control, and a 7 ply engine got over 2300 US (2200 FIDE). Komodo is much more selective than those engines but also has more knowledge and extensions, so it's not clear which would be stronger at 7 ply or so fixed depth. But it's obvious that Skill 20 (7 ply) would not get a 2200 FIDE rating in standard chess now, if I can beat it at 10' + 5" and I'm only around US 2300/FIDE 2200 level now. I can't really reconcile these facts. Surely standards haven't risen that much; are FIDE 2200 players really that much stronger than 30 years ago, with most people saying that FIDE ratings have INFLATED? Bottom line: we need more data on humans vs. current engines (either ones with ratings in human range or crippled levels like Komodo Skill 20 to 24)."
[/quote]
I am not saying you are doing this on purpose but that you fell, probably subconsciously, under PR influence of Larry.
Two things you need to change in your testings.
First, use GUI that can reliably play fixed depth/fixed nodes matches like Arena, since what you are using now clearly is not working.
And second, if you are testing engine vs engine, never use fixed depth (unless it is depth=1) but instead fixed nodes (ofc assuming that are nodes at least roughly reported in a similar fashion) for a rough comparison which eval is better.
[/quote]


Mr. Milos the reason why I am using Shredder Gui and Larry uses Fritz Gui is because the Arena Gui causes Komodo to play either too fast or ignore that it first has to reach certain Depth before it let the engine select the candidate move. Take a look at this game where Jorge Sammour FIDE rated 2458 easily beat Komodo after Komodo made a quick move and it placed its Queen 20.Qe4 ? where Jorge Sammour forced it to move and got a Rook for a knight exchanged under Arena 3.51

Here is at depth 7 Jorge was a little bit too much for Komodo 13.3 Time Control 10 + 5 sec increment, I just lost another $50.00
https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=5300363

[pgn][Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "DESKTOP-OFQ3C0P"]
[Date "2020.07.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Komodo-13.3-64bit"]
[Black "Jorge Sammour"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "2458"]
[ECO "B02"]
[Opening "Alekhine"]
[Time "18:11:03"]
[Variation "Two Pawns Attack, 5.Nc3"]
[WhiteElo "2000"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "86"]


1. e4 {(e2-e4 Nb8-c6 Nb1-c3 e7-e6 d2-d4 d7-d5 e4xd5) +0.38/8 0} Nf6 2. e5
{(e4-e5 Nf6-d5 d2-d4 Nb8-c6 c2-c4 Nd5-b4 Nb1-c3 d7-d5) +0.89/8 0} Nd5 3. c4
{(c2-c4 Nd5-b4 a2-a3 Nb4-c6 d2-d4 d7-d5 e5xd6/ep e7xd6) +0.89/8} Nb6 4. c5
{(c4-c5 Nb6-d5 Nb1-c3 e7-e6 d2-d4 Nb8-c6 Ng1-f3 Bf8-e7) +1.02/8 0} Nd5 5.
Nc3 {(Nb1-c3 Nd5xc3 d2xc3 Nb8-c6 Ng1-f3 e7-e6 Bc1-g5 Bf8-e7) +1.02/8} e6 6.
d4 {(d2-d4 Nb8-c6 Nc3xd5 e6xd5 Ng1-f3 d7-d6 Bc1-g5 Bf8-e7) +0.87/8 0} d6 7.
Ne4 {(Nc3-e4 Nb8-c6 Bc1-g5) +0.84/8 0} dxe5 8. dxe5 {(d4xe5 Nb8-d7 Bc1-g5)
+0.45/8 0} Nd7 9. Nf3 {(Ng1-f3 Nd7xc5 Bf1-d3 Nc5xd3+ Qd1xd3 Bf8-b4+ Bc1-d2
Bb4xd2+ Ne4xd2 O-O O-O Nd5-b4) +0.45/8} Nxc5 10. Nxc5 {(Ne4xc5 Bf8xc5
Bf1-c4 Nd5-b6 Qd1xd8+ Ke8xd8 Bc4-d3 Nb6-d5 Bc1-d2) +0.45/8} Bxc5 11. Bc4
{(Bf1-c4 Nd5-b6 Qd1xd8+ Ke8xd8 Bc4-d3 f7-f6 Bc1-d2 Nb6-d7 e5xf6) +0.45/8}
Be7 12. O-O {(O-O O-O Bc4-d3) +0.03/8 0} c5 13. Qb3 {(Qd1-b3 O-O Rf1-d1
Qd8-d7 Bc4xd5 e6xd5 Rd1xd5 Qd7-e6) +0.32/8 0} O-O 14. Rd1 {(Rf1-d1 Qd8-b6
Bc4xd5 e6xd5 Qb3xd5 Bc8-f5 h2-h3 Ra8-d8) +0.32/8} b6 15. Bd2 {(Bc1-d2
Bc8-b7 Qb3-d3 h7-h6 a2-a4 Qd8-e8 h2-h3 Ra8-d8) -0.15/8 0} a5 16. a4 {(a2-a4
Bc8-a6 Bc4xa6 Ra8xa6 Qb3-d3 Ra6-a7 h2-h3 Ra7-d7) -0.37/8 0} Bb7 17. Bb5
{(Bc4-b5 Bb7-a6 Bb5xa6 Ra8xa6 Kg1-h1 h7-h6 h2-h3 Ra6-a7) -0.42/8 0} Qc7 18.
Qc2 {(Qb3-c2 Ra8-d8 Nf3-g5 Be7xg5 Bd2xg5 Qc7xe5 Bg5xd8) -0.58/8 0} Rfd8 19.
Ng5 {(Nf3-g5 Be7xg5 Bd2xg5 Qc7xe5 Bg5xd8 Ra8xd8 Qc2-e2 Qe5-f4) -0.36/8 0}
g6 20. Qe4 {(Qc2-e4 Nd5-c3 Qe4-f4 Be7xg5 Qf4xg5 Nc3xd1 Ra1xd1 Rd8-d4)
-1.49/8 0} Nc3 21. Qh4 {(Qe4-h4 Be7xg5 Qh4xg5 Nc3xd1 Ra1xd1 Bb7-c6 f2-f3
Bc6xb5) -1.49/8} Bxg5 22. Qxg5 {(Qh4xg5 Nc3xd1 Ra1xd1 Bb7-c6 f2-f3 Bc6xb5
a4xb5 Rd8-d5) -1.49/8} Nxd1 23. Rxd1 {(Ra1xd1 Rd8-d5 f2-f3 Qc7xe5 Qg5xe5
Rd5xe5 h2-h3 Re5-d5) -1.49/8} Bc6 24. Bxc6 {(Bb5xc6 Qc7xc6 Qg5-f4 Rd8-d5
g2-g3 Ra8-d8 Qf4-e4 c5-c4) -2.91/8 0} Qxc6 25. Ra1 {(Rd1-a1 Rd8-d5 b2-b3)
-2.91/8} Qd5 26. Be1 {(Bd2-e1 Qd5-d4 Qg5-c1 Qd4xe5 Be1-c3 Qe5-e2 Bc3-f6
Rd8-d5) -3.68/8 0} Qb3 27. Qc1 {(Qg5-c1 Rd8-d5 Qc1-c3 Qb3xc3 Be1xc3 Ra8-d8
f2-f3 Kg8-g7) -3.52/8 0} Rd3 28. f3 {(f2-f3 Ra8-d8 Ra1-a3 Qb3-d1 Qc1xd1
Rd3xd1 Kg1-f2 Rd8-d5 Ra3-e3) -3.68/8 0} Rad8 29. Ra3 {(Ra1-a3 Qb3-d5 Ra3xd3
Qd5xd3 Qc1-g5 Rd8-d4 Qg5-f6 Qd3-e3+ Kg1-f1) -3.68/8 0} Qd1 30. Qxd1
{(Qc1xd1 Rd3xd1 Kg1-f2 Rd8-d5 Be1-c3 Rd1-c1 Kf2-e3 Rc1-c2) -3.35/8 0} Rxd1
31. Kf2 {(Kg1-f2 Rd8-d5 Be1-c3 c5-c4 b2-b3 Rd5-c5 b3xc4 Rc5xc4) -3.35/8 0}
Rc1 32. Rb3 {(Ra3-b3 Rd8-d4 Rb3xb6 Rd4xa4 h2-h3 Kg8-g7 Rb6-b5 Rc1-c2+
Kf2-f1) -3.20/8 0} Rdd1 33. Bc3 {(Be1-c3 Rc1-c2+ Kf2-e3 Rc2xg2 Rb3xb6
Rd1-d5 h2-h3 Rg2-h2 Rb6-b5) -2.98/8 0} Rc2+ 34. Ke3 {(Kf2-e3 Rc2xg2 Rb3xb6
Rd1-d5 Rb6-b5 h7-h5 h2-h3 Rg2-h2) -2.98/8} c4 35. Rxb6 {(Rb3xb6 Rd1-d3+
Ke3-f4 Rc2xg2 h2-h4 Kg8-g7 Rb6-b5 Rg2-h2 Rb5xa5) -3.23/8 0} Rd3+ 36. Kf4
{(Ke3-f4 Rc2xg2 h2-h4) -3.23/8} Rxg2 37. h4 {(h2-h4 Rg2-f2 Rb6-b5 Rd3xf3+
Kf4-e4 Rf3-f4+ Ke4-e3 Rf2-f3+ Ke3-e2 Rf3-d3 Rb5xa5 Rf4xh4) -3.23/8} h6 38.
Ke4 {(Kf4-e4 Rg2-e2+ Ke4-f4 Re2-f2 Kf4-e4 Rf2xf3 Rb6-c6 Rf3-e3+ Ke4-f4
Re3-h3) -3.98/8 0} g5 39. hxg5 {(h4xg5 h6xg5 Rb6-b8+ Kg8-g7 Rb8-g8+ Kg7xg8
Bc3-d4 Rg2-e2+ Bd4-e3 Re2xe3+) -M5/8 0} hxg5 40. Rb8+ {(Rb6-b8+ Kg8-g7
Rb8-g8+ Kg7xg8 Bc3-d4 Rg2-e2+ Bd4-e3 Re2xe3+) -M5/8} Kg7 41. Rg8+ {(Rb8-g8+
Kg7xg8 Bc3-d4 Rg2-e2+ Bd4-e3 Re2xe3+) -M5/8} Kxg8 42. Bd4 {(Bc3-d4 Rg2-e2+
Bd4-e3 Re2xe3+) -M5/8} Re2+ 43. Be3 {(Bd4-e3 Re2xe3+) -M5/8 White resigns}
Rexe3# 0-1[/pgn]