Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:04:55 05/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2004 at 08:48:34, martin fierz wrote: >On May 10, 2004 at 08:11:34, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On May 10, 2004 at 07:33:38, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>there are instances where pushing pawns in front of your king is ok. there are >>>others where it's not ok. they are rather easy to distinguish most of the time >>>(some simple rules are sufficient for this) and i'm surprised that you don't >>>understand that it's not such a great idea here... >> >>Rules of thumb are good but not great, there are always exceptions and computers >>are experts at finding them. It is possible that all other moves simply lose >>faster. > >if you read the entire thread you would see the issue is not the move ...g5 at >all. as has been said before, but you obviously didn't read, kasparov himself >said that ...g5 was necessary to keep black in the game. >the point i was trying to make is that if black has to resort to such moves, it >is clear he did something wrong *before*. I did read the entire thread, except the post you made about the same time as me, and the talk has been about whether g5 was good or bad. Just read what you wrote "and i'm surprised that you don't understand that it's not such a great idea here..." (meaning the move g5 should have been avoided). I think the talk should have been about Bc7 or like you also wrote h6, those where more suspicious, IMPatzerO. >>>i know you are a born >>>skeptic, but perhaps you should learn to trust people with more experience >>>sometimes :-) >> >>Sometimes, but maybe not this time ;) >>Just look at the thread below >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?364474 > >this is totally irrelevant. I don't think it is irrelevant, I don't see why Uri or me should trust some GM analysis made on the fly, during a live TV transmission when GMs can't even get it right in the analysis they publish in books. >you have to distinguish between concrete analysis, >where there can always be mistakes by humans, and general assessments, such as >"if black has to play ....g5 here he's in bad shape". the second is true unless >disproved by a concrete variation which doesn't seem to exist here. General assessments are not very relevant when talking about a concrete example such as this. I guess that is what you are saying also. >>I think the original intent was to show that DB was not at the level of "modern" >>programs _because_ it played g5. Now we have other programs playing it too so >>this bit of "proof" goes out the window, IMO. > >there were several other positions besides the one with ...g5 mentioned. and >this one shouldn't even have been mentioned, the really stupid moves were Qa5 >and Bc7, and perhaps h6 to start with. here it's already "too late" and you have >to start making concessions with ...g5. The g5 move was the one refered to as a "blunder" (read the thread please:). I do agree some of the others look more suspicious :) >>Sure you can argue DB was bad because it got itself into this position in the >>first place (what is the queen doing on the a-file?? :-), but that's a different >>debate :) > >so in fact no, this isn't a different debate. it started out with those >positions which got DB into trouble and degenerated into talking about ...g5, >because uri liked that move. there are two ways of looking at ...g5: 1) that >it's the only move here, and 2) that it's an extremely ugly move to play and >that it's clear now that black is in trouble. both are correct, and seem >contradictory at first, but they are not. It makes a difference as to whether it is a blunder or not. It may look ugly, but if it is forced by tactics then it's not a blunder per se. -S. >cheers > martin > >a small PS: i'm certain that if frenzee was a bit less happy about pushing pawns >in front of it's king, it would be a much stronger engine :-)
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.