Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:43:39 01/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 1999 at 15:31:40, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On January 20, 1999 at 11:44:29, Soren Riis wrote: > >>Kasparov just won against Topolov what must be one the most beutiful >>combinations in the history of chess. What is the engines oppinion? Did any of >>them find Rxd4!!! Is there any defence for black? After Ra7 and Bb7? >> >>Soren Riis > > >Hi Soren, > >I just came back from Wijk aan Zee, witnessing the brilliant game won >by Kasparov. The following might be of interest to you: > >1. According to Kasparov 24. ... cxd4 was a mistake and Black should > have played 24. ... Kb6 instead. Maybe there is a computer program > that refrains from taking the rook, finding the move 24 ... Kb6? > It seems impossible to me one would play this! Furthermore Kasparov > told on Dutch Tv Text that after 24 ... cxd4? Black is lost and > everything is pretty much forced. > >2. After 24. ... cxd4 25. Re7+ Kb8 the game would have been finished > in a nice way as well: 26. Qxd4 Nd7 27. Bxd7 Bxd5 28. Qb6+ Ka8 > 29. Qxa6+ Kb8 30. Qb6+ Ka8 31. Bc6+ Bxc6 32. Nxc6 winning the queen > and remaining with a 2 pawns advantage. > >3. I shortly analysed the game at home with The King 2.54 and it played > the very interesting 30. ... Rhe8!? instead of 30. ... Qc4. (Note > that 30. ... Rd6? 31. Rb6!! wins brilliantly). The point is that > Black prepares ... Qe5 in answer to Kb2. So after 30. ... Rhe8!? > 31. Rb6 (what else?) Ra8 can be played. The King only finds 32. Be6!? > Rxe6 33. Rxe6 (again threatening Kb2 winning) Qc4! 34. Qxc4 bxc4 > 35. Rxf6 Kxa3, but this seems defensible for Black. > >So the big question is: Is there a win after 30. ... Rhe8!? > >Best regards, Jeroen Noomen I watched Kasparov (black) play a game yesterday morning, and in a simple endgame that was pretty well drawn, white kept finding ways to make mistakes, lose a pawn here, a pawn there, and pretty soon Kasparov won a probably dead drawn game. Due to opponent errors. Looks like the same thing happened here. Would be nice to see him try that against a computer, but we _know_ he won't, because there was a forced perpetual in one game where he could have played Bxh7+, but in his words "I wasn't sure I didn't miss something and didn't want to take a chance." Take chances against humans, _not_ against computers, as they shine a bright light on your analysis and expose _any_ small flaws that were overlooked. :)
This page took 0.01 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.