Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 13:55:24 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 13:17:06, Peter Kappler wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 12:12:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 09:36:28, Rolf Tueschen 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 ? >>>> >>>>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 >> >> >>That seemed to be very good, and a move my program was not going to find, which >>only means I have more work to do. However, I'm a bit concerned about making >>a great move here and an ugly move there. The ugly move there will hurt more >>than the great move here, in the long run, if the goal is to play at the top of >>the heap (Super-GM chess). At that level, one bad move is generally all it >>takes, while it might take several consecutive great moves just to hang on. > > >Bxh2 certainly made for a fun game, but it is not a sound sacrifice. There are >some tricky lines that most mortals wouldn't find at the board, but White is >definitely winning. But wasn't it always so with Tal?. But wait, we come back another day and perhaps then we find a little resource and things aren't quite so clear afterall... > >-Peter
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.