Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:36:09 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 16:12:06, Peter Berger wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 15:54:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 15:15:33, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2003 at 12:10:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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 ? >>>> >>>> >>>>Take game 1. I don't know of _anybody_ that would play like that, except >>>>for some computers. Totally lost. >>>> >>>>Take game 2. Every GM criticized the idea of "winning the exchange" instantly. >>>>It took me (and other lowly humans) a lot longer to conclude "this looks very >>>>dangerous for white, where prior to accepting we all thought white had a better >>>>position. >>>> >>>>Take game 3. Taking the g-pawn to open a file in your own king's face. Did >>>>you hear _any_ IM/GM player that thought that was a good move? I didn't and >>>>we had _several_ on ICC. >>> >>>I believe your comments on game 3 are much too simplistic. There are many >>>examples in chess where one player exposes himself to an attack knowing that at >>>least one of the following holds: >>> >>>- reasonable material compensation (the classic way to combat a gambit is to >>>grab the pawn, and give it back later when it suits you best) >>>- reasonable positional compensation >>> >>>This is the modern dynamic chess style: overcoming the stereotyped evaluation of >>>a chess position to find the resources hidden beneath the surface. >>> >>>A good example is the poisoned pawn variation of the Sicilian Najdorf. It would >>>be easy to simply dismiss this as a silly pawn grab, and I believe that many GMs >>>were highly skeptical when it was first introduced. But history has shown it a >>>viable defense. White has many attacking options but also has problems on the >>>dark squares, a weaker centre, and a pawn is a pawn. >>> >>>I have studied this game 3 in some depth and certainly taking the g-pawn was a >>>reasonable move. As well as netting the pawn black was able to gain counterplay >>>against the white king which was rather loose in the centre. >>> >>>Was it ultimately sound? Thats hard to say, but it is definitely the sort of >>>move a Kortchnoi or a Fischer might have played. >>> >>><snip> >> >>I want to support those who say, maybe Nxg4 was forced - although I agree with >>those who say that the position is probably lost for Black. >> >>And then I conclude [what every chessplayer did] that the crucial position of >>the line must be earlier in the line. IF Black is FORCED to take the Pawn g4, >>then such a position is already letally wounded - this is what all the masters >>said and DJ won't find a perfect defense here. But having said that does not >>mean that the win for White is _easy_. Because it still requires permanent >>precision. GM are known to be able to do that. Period. >> >>Question remains, where is the crucial point for a better move for Black. >>If that's in the book then this is a fault of GM Alterman who had time enough to >>check such moves [g4] as typical anti-comp. Sorry, I remember that Sandro Necchi >>is the responsible. Well, then we have a typical problem for CC because in case >>the book author is no GM or no anti-comp expert, then he won't find the danger >>in g4. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >What do I miss here? Nxg4 looked ugly, still it was a good move - I haven't seen >any analysis suggesting a win for white in this game. With a small but long-term advantage. Look into the different comments. If you can't find it I will have a look. But Kasparov chose a different line. BTW the better line was already mentioned on the Fritz server. Ok, Peter, if you want, you can also claim that a comp could defend with - say - bad bishop against good one or whatever. Against a comp that isn't won yet. But talking about super-GM ... I think that your short message claimed something very modern today. Also Amir has adopted that logic. He has a 3-3 against whom? Well against the best human SUPER-GM. So, Amir is correct, DJ is also a SUPER-GM. So, if we have weak Bishop against strong Bishop, and a comp holds a draw with the weak B, then we can conclude that our concept of weak/strong B is nonsense. We would never doubt that the human player did something wrong or was less motivated... 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.