Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:57:26 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2003 at 06:08:16, Uri Blass wrote: >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 underpromotion then I >cannot exploit this weakness by getting that endgame. >There are weaknesses that are not important for games. It was just an example. Surely these two weaknesses are not crucial. Weak-Chain-Theory means something else. Of course the weaknesses must have a basic importance. My argument was a general weakness in Amirs logic. And with the Nxg4 "only move" his logic finally became senseless. Because the open file weakness is letal. Rolf Tueschen > >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.