For the first split second Stockfish 11's first choice was Topalov's move 18. RxN. Then it favored Bb2, then favored Ne5, then favored Qc1

18. Qc1 Bf6
+ (0.29--) Depth=37/59 0:04:54 324 MN

I plugged in Topalov's 18. RxN and played the moves, for both sides, given by Stockfish:

18. Rxe4 dxe4 19. Ne5 Qd5 20. Qe1 Bf5 21. f3 e3 22. g4 f6 23. Nxc6 Qxc6 24. gxf5 Rfe8 25. b4 Qd7 26. Qe2 Qxf5 27. Rd1 Rbd8 28. Rd3 Bf8 29. Rxe3 Kf7 30. Rxe8 Rxe8 31. Qd2 Rd8 32. Bf1 a6 33. a4 bxa4 34. Bc4+ Ke8 35. Qd1 a3

Eval (0.00) Depth 34/15

Required reading for those who are quick off the mark to proclaim their brilliance, or use engine output to slag others.

Signed,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon...

It actually exists (so you can't always trust your HS chemistry teacher).

As far as engines - some people on this site are dead set against them, but they offer great insights into positions - which can be combed out by even low rated players, if they know how to do it.

In the end, I think <Ron> is entitled to his opinion, even if he used an engine to make it. Opinions, after all, can be right / wrong / up / down and all around.

What is nettlesome is how certain posters use the output of their silicon monstah to play 'gotcha!', with the implication being they would have nailed down all the finesses of the position. After sitting opposite even GMs who have blundered, I have little truck with such foolishness.

<....In the end, I think <Ron> is entitled to his opinion, even if he used an engine to make it. Opinions, after all, can be right / wrong / up / down and all around....>

Of course he is.

This is true. I always have a level of humility whenever I present engine analysis. I'm such a weak player that I never trust myself enough to not use an engine when publishing analysis (and see above!).

The cliche is that the hardest game to win is a won game. An exaggeration of course, but with its kernel of truth.

(One thing for sure, losing a won game is very, very painful)

<It takes little effort or understanding, by comparison, to flick on <fishie> or one's other engine of choice, move on to something else, then review the output.>

Of course, if you're shallow the engine result is easy to flout oversights while skating over any deep understanding of position.

But it's a tool, and like any tool, it requires proper use. Most tools make doing a job easier, if the job is done right.

Ironically, in a sense, I think chess engines make the job harder, as they allow a deeper understanding of position. But you have to use them to probe and explore - which requires quite a bit of time (on my part at least) if a deep understanding of what is actually happening is to be garnered.