Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:36:28 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 07:59:54, Amir Ban wrote: >On February 15, 2003 at 13:06:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >> >>I disagree with the "played like a super-GM" player, however. I doubt you >>will find _any_ 2200 FIDE player that would play as badly as DJ played in >>the first three games, up until move 30 or so. Game 1 would not have been >>played by any 2000 player I know, myself included. So saying that it has >>super-GM positional understanding is _way_ _way_ offbase. Yes, it played >>good moves at times. But it also played _horrible_ moves at times. And I >>am not just talking about tactically horrible moves such as the blunders that >>Kasparov dropped on the board, I am talking about moves such as taking the >>g-pawn and getting exposed to a horrific attack. >> > >I can't agree with any of this. > >It would be good to back the statement that Junior played the "first three >games, up until move 30 or so" worse than 2200 with some concrete examples of >where a 2200 player would play better. The three games lasted 27, 30 & 36 moves, >so what does this mean at all ? > >The one example you give, of 10... Nxg4 in game three, is wrong. Taking the pawn >is the only move that does not lose quickly. I assume that what you prefer is >what crafty would play, which I see is 10... h6. I don't know if this is >apparent to a 2200 player, but 10... h6 11. g5 is hopeless for black. Crafty >does not even expect 11. g5. > >The picture you give of Kasparov missing won positions due to making "tactically >horrible moves" against an opponent who shows tactical resilience (while playing >like a positional patzer) simply did not happen in this match. Maybe you have >been watching crafty on ICC, but not Deep Junior in NYC. > >Kasparov did not make any real blunders in this match, at least not the way I >understand "blunder" as a move that he and much lesser players would in normal >circumstances easily avoid. Kasparov's motives in describing his mistakes as >"fingerfehlers" are obvious, since if they were so, then they somehow don't >count and we have to count the games he lost as surely drawn, and those he drew >as surely won, but we don't have to buy that. > >To describe 32. Rh5 of game 3 as a blunder is a gross misrepresentation. It >misses a rather spectacular mate possibility. Not something that one sees in a >blitz game (not even Eduard Nemeth). > >Calling 25... Qa1+ of game 2 a blunder is really stretching it. Kasparov, by his >own words, worked it out to a forced win, but missed a rook check 18 ply down >the road. This is not a blunder but a hard luck story. Anderssen's combination >in the Evergreen Game was not as deep. Would we accept Dufrense saying "I was >totally winning but blundered and allowed Rd1" ? > >Amir Thank you for the many opinions. I hope that the debate will be a serious and lively debate. I want to add - of course with extreme humility - the point of the Bxh2. Did you forget the many questions here? Just to give the Black&White picture a little bit of color. Rolf Tueschen
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.