Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:08:16 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2003 at 05:15:52, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 21:14:34, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>>The point is easy. The whole line, Peter, is bad for Black. See the post from >>>Michael. I gave the number to Peter Berger. Michael showed, and others before on >>>the servers, that White had advantage. Not to be proven with whole lines of 40 >>>plies but still visible. Of course Kasparov played exactly NOT the line that led >>>to advantage. So back to Nxg4. After g4 played, yes, then Nxg4 might be the best >>>move. But NOT in a sense that it's a good move. If Nxg4 is a "good" move then >>>the whole line is bull, that is the summary of that line. And the early 0-0 is >>>the reason for that mess. So, to begin with you must avoid to play 0-0. >> >>But Bob wasn't talking about O-O, he was talking about Nxg4. And I answered >>Bob, so I was also taking about Nxg4. Yes, we were both talking about Nxg4 I >>think. >> >>Get it? >> >>Repeat after me 100 times: we were talking about Nxg4 >> >> >>Having a conversation with you is funny: > > >Since English is Peter's main language the responsibility is _Peters_ that >nobody is to be spoken to like that. Peters indecency is well documented here >[it was just a couple of days ago]. The point here in our debate is clear to >every good chessplayer [Peter is one] and therefore it's telling that exactly >Amir's report is so confusing. And against Peters own knowledge he keeps on >roaring here with a lingual overfloading as if he could defend Amir against Bob. >This message here is a good example for Peters temper and communicative >weaknesses. > >Just to explain to readers with less chess skills I'd like to show why Bob's >position is ok and Amir is wrong. > >The question is, if the move Nxg4 is good, acceptable or bad? > >Amir said: it's the only move, and he insists that Crafty would play the worse >h6 and so that Amir thinks that Junior is better than Crafty because it found >the "best" = only move Nxg4. > >My comment: Amir is fatally wrong! I would say that a program that _avoids_ the >opening of the g-line is _always_ "better"! Although its response (h6) is _also_ >bad. Here it's very clear that such a seemingly contradictory situation cannot >be solved in that move itself but only in the perspective of the whole line. >Every good chessplayer simply goes back and seeks for improvement. And it's very >clear again that already Blacks O-O is very bad because after the response g4 >the threat g5 is already the end. And for basic reasons Black cannot open the >g-file if White has not yet castled. Would Crafty avoid O-O? Michael showed that >it prefered Bb7! So I conclude: Amir confuses the whole question of that line. >He is not even aware of the fact that the whole line is bull if afterwards Black >is forced to open the g-file. Crafty is much wiser because it avoids the whole >zwick! > >Amirs difficulties have a historic record. A predescent of todays Junior was >unable to mate with B+N against the naked K. More, it was incapable to >underpromote. The logic of the response was that these situations were rather >seldom in the games. Perhaps the opening of the g-file is also good in general >and only in very rare cases disadvantageous. Reason: Junior needs the open game. >But here is a clear indication of the fallacies of such lopsided reasoning in >CC. Once such weaknesses become known a human chessplayer will exploit it >without mercy. If several weaknesses exist the overall result will be a real >pain for CC. The difference between comp-comp chess and comp-human chess is >apparent! [With the Weak-Chain theory I had in mind that human players are >capable of aiming exactly to such weaknesses while comps are totally incapable >to _do_ that or to _defend_ against it!] I disagree with the weak chain theory. If I know that my opponent cannot win KBN vs K and cannot underpromotr then I cannot exploit this weakness by getting that endgame. There are weaknesses that are not important for games. Uri
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.