Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:42:05 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 12:54:14, Mike Castañuela wrote: >On January 21, 1999 at 11:46:51, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >> >>>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... >> >>Dear Robert, >> >>I have to disagree with you. The whole concept of Rxd4 - winning ir not - >>will not be found by many players. Kasparov saw it and calculated it >>very deeply. It also is very courageous playing this way and I think >>Gary is the only one in the world at this moment capable of playing such >>games. >> >>To me it was a delight to see this game live, because not many games >>are played in this style. Kasparov deserves great credit for this. And if >>you find at home that there is a hole in the combination: So what? >>This is what chess is about! And didn't we all love Tal? That is the >>point! It's not the fact that Rxd4 might not be winning that counts, >>but the fact he played it and it became a fantastic game. >> > >This is the point; I myself consider this game truly masterful >style of play, pschicology, inventivennes, not 100% correct maybe, >but again, so waht? You can dislike the personality of Kasp, but >he's a genius of chess, *maybe* the first one of all time. > >Prof. Hyatt, the genuine chess fan recognizes the magic >of Rxd4, can you understand so? > > only to a certain degree. If it turns out that black has a forced win, how is the sac remembered then? IE if someone overlooks something and hangs a pawn, but after it is taken, there turns out to be a winning attack, was that oversight brilliant or sloppy? That was my only point here. Kasparov loves that kind of move. As do we all. I'm only saying that many times, such 'brilliant' moves turn out to be absolute lemons, once the defense is found. Can someone find such OTB? Maybe or maybe not. In the actual game? No of course, as Kasparov won. What about playing that against a computer? It might have turned out even better for him. Or it might have lost if the machine played Rhe8 and that is good enough to hold on. Everyone knows my opinion of 'Kasparov, the man'. I still respect and admire 'Kasparov, the chessplayer' however. And this was only about 'the chessplayer' and the move he played... was it good, bad, or just legal? > > >>Best regards, Jeroen
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.