Author: Soren Riis
Date: 06:17:32 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 08:25:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 21, 1999 at 05:33:50, Prakash Das wrote: > >>On January 20, 1999 at 19:43:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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. :) >> >> >> Yes Bob, and why are you not so quick to point out the poor performance from >>the others in this tournament? Shirov today wiggled out a draw against Timman >>from a losing position, and this is a guy who is claiming to compete for a >>world championship. And there are lots of such games so far. >> >> Kasparov showed today why he is best of them all. Many reasons but the most >>important being his ability to adapt and prepare and outsmart opponents. >> >> Show some fairness. Try, okay? > >Perhaps I should point you to the title of this thread: "Brilliant win by >Kasparov!!: What about 30. ... Rhe8!?" > >Where exactly do we start talking about Shirov, Topolov, etc? I simply pointed >out that many of Kasparov's wins are the result of the human getting 'psyched' >rather than by his playing a brilliant and irrefutable move. > >no fairness issue here at all. I believe if you look at my comments about >prior GM games you will _always_ find that I have said that _every_ game I have >ever gone over carefully has at least one blunder. So there was no intent to >be 'unfair'. However, the 'brilliance' of Rxd4 is yet to be proved... Robert Hyatt seems to be losing his head here. Let me remind Mr. Hyatt that any chess position either is lost, is a draw or a is win for white. Hyatt statement that every game he has ever gone over carefully has at least one blunder indicates that he does not include many of numerous wellknown drawing lines. Many of these was first played as a game between GMs. If he only include game in which white/black won his finding is hardly surprising, but is rather a simple logical consequence of the nature of the game. Let me also remind him that the funny numbers your programs assign to chess positions (like +0.15 or -0.06 etc.) are trying to achieve something very similar to what Mr. Hyatt is so dismisive about - when it is done by Kasparov. The funny numbers are used to create positions where it is more likely that the opponent will make a mistake so the new position for example not is a draw but is a win. Only mistakes from the opponent can make a draw into a win. If chess computers only concern was to play correct chess they should only have 3 evaluations: lost, draw, won. When Kasparow got his brilliant vision (as he have explained around move 19) the position was very likely objectively a draw. So was the position when Kasparov played 24: Rxd4!!! It seems that black could have hold the balance by two different methods - Either 24:-,Kb6 or by playing 30...Rhe8 in the line they followed in the game. Mr. Hyatt writes that the `brilliance' of Rxd4 is yet to be proved. The move was played in a draw position, yet it was brilliant. It was brilliant from a pragmatic perspective. But more importantly it was also brilliant from an artistic point of view. And it was brilliant judged on the level of `ideas'. Mr. Hyatt comment indicate that (though I have great respect for him as a programmer) he has very little grasp or appreciation of chess. Kasparov idea is the creation of a true genius. Many of the ideas are hidden in the side lines. Let me finally conclude that I am also genuinely impressed by the strong programmes who found 24: Rxd4!! In my mind no program can play 24: Rxd4 without having being constructed by a brilliant chess programmer. By the way: Did Crafty find 24:Rxd4? Soren Riis
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.