Author: Vine Smith
Date: 08:20:07 05/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2001 at 10:33:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 19, 2001 at 10:15:06, Vine Smith wrote: > >>On May 19, 2001 at 08:52:03, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2001 at 06:22:23, Vine Smith wrote: >>> >>>>On May 19, 2001 at 05:26:07, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Fritz - Gambit Tiger Leiden round 4 >>>>>------------------------------------- >>>>>1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 Nc6 4. Be3 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. d5 Na5 7. Nf3 Bd6 >>>>>8. Qa4+ Bd7 9. Qxa5 a6 10. Na4 Qe7 11. a3 Nxe4 12. Bxc4 b5 13. Bd3 Nf6 >>>>>14. Nc3 e4 15. Nxe4 Nxe4 16. O-O O-O 17. Rfe1 f5 18. h3 Qf7 19. Rad1 Rfe8 >>>>>20. Bc2 g6 21. b4 Nc3 22. Rd3 Qg7 23. Bd1 Ne4 24. Bd4 Qf7 25. Rde3 g5 >>>>>26. Bc2 g4 27. hxg4 fxg4 28. Bxe4 gxf3 29. Bxf3 Qf4 30. Bc5 Qh2+ 31. Kf1 >>>>>Bf4 32. Rxe8+ Bxe8 33. Be3 Bd6 34. Ke2 Bh5 35. Rd1 Qe5 36. Rd4 Bxf3+ >>>>>37. gxf3 Qf5 38. Rd3 h5 39. a4 h4 40. axb5 h3 41. Qa1 h2 42. b6 cxb6 >>>>>43. Qh1 Rc8 44. f4 Qh5+ 45. Kf1 Rc2 46. Bd2 Bxf4 47. d6 Rxd2 48. Rxd2 Bxd2 >>>>>49. d7 Qd1+ 50. Kg2 Qxh1+ 0-1 >>>> >>>>Astonishing positional suicide -- few, if any, humans would ever play 21.b4, >>>>entombing the queen. Of course, Tiger could afford to open the game in any way >>>>it pleased after that. It would be interesting to see if the lack of interest in >>>>liberating the queen is duplicated by many programs; correct or not, I would >>>>have been so concerned about this offside post that I would have played 17.Qe1 >>>>immediately. >>> >>> >>> The terms "mobility" and "king safety" comes to mind after this kamikaze... >>> >>> Anyway, I made a quick check on PIII 800 with 128 Mb hash. 4 min ponder. >>> >>> Fritz 5.32 21.b3 and later plays b3-b4. >>> Fritz 6 Old 21.b3 >>> Fritz 6 (Newest) 21.b4 >>> Deep Fritz 21.b4 >>> Hiarcs 7.32 21.b4 >>> >>> Then we have some non closers: >>> >>> Crafty 18.08 21.Bc1 >>> Shredder 5 21.h4 >>> Gandalf 4.32h 21.Kf1 or 21.Re2 (shifting after 4.02) >>> >>> Sune >> >>Horrible that not only Fritz, but also Deep Fritz (this program is going to play >>Kramnik???) and Hiarcs (with something of a good reputation for positional play, >>I thought) commit this blunder. Also, any program that doesn't evaluate the >>resulting position at something like -2.00 or lower has nothing to be proud of. > > >I totally disagree. >White can play a4 later to get the queen free space. > >It may be not good to waste tempos for the purpose but evaluating the position >as -2.00 or lower seems crazy to me and with 2 more pawns I will be happy to be >white. > >Uri I thought I was being rather charitable with -2.00. Certainly, a4 right away, presumably to be followed by axb5, wouldn't free the queen with the rook on a8 covering the a-file. If White plays Ra1, Black can counter with Qf8. But the real point is that the queen is totally unavailable for kingside defense, and even if eventually freed through cumbersome maneuvers, its absence during Black's attack renders the position lost. Don't GMs sacrifice entire pieces for this kind of advantage? Regards, Vine
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.