Author: blass uri
Date: 15:30:20 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 14:07:06, Mike Castañuela wrote: >On January 21, 1999 at 13:35:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 21, 1999 at 12:33:54, Soren Riis wrote: >> >>>On January 21, 1999 at 11:55:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 21, 1999 at 09:17:32, Soren Riis wrote: >>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I am talking about OTB games >>>>mainly ones that I watch being relayed to chess servers. But I'll say this >>>>again, slowly this time: >>>> >>>> "every GM game that I have gone over in detail, using a computer for >>>> analysis, has had at least one blunder, often two or three. These >>>> 'blunders' don't always lose, because (ie today in Kasparov vs >>>> Reinderman) a blunder is occasionally matched by a blunder from the >>>> other side, or because the blunder is the difference between a score >>>> of +5 and +2." >>>> >>>>So I'm not "losing" anything at all. I simply made a comment that I can back >>>>up in probably any sample game you care to submit. >>> >>>You seems to suggest Kasparov made a blunder which was matched by another >>>blunder. To me it seems that it is you who are making a blunder. If Kasparov >>>made a blunder we must conclude that white had a clear lasting advantage >>>position around move 19. The only alternative to 24:Rxd4 is 24:Nc6 which I doubt >>>you are claiming is winning for white. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT WAS KASPAROVS >>>BLUNDER! You claim kasparov made a blunder so it must be fair to ask you which >>>of his moves was a blunder. Also what is your distintion between a blunder and a >>>weak move? You really seems to be saying Kasporov had a won position around move >>>19? >>> >>>What was the blunder in todays game played by Anand? >>> >>>As your statement stands it is obviously false - it is like a piece en prise. >>> >> >>Then lets leave it at that. That is your opinion. "obviously false" doesn't >>say much, because I don't see anything obvious about it. You have somehow >>really turned around what I posted, so I am going to try to correct you one >>more time. Please pay attention: >> >>Kasparov played the move Rxd4. He won the game. But it is _not_ clear that >>Rxd4 is winning. > >Again. In the posts of J. Noomen, S. Riis and me, it isn't the point. >One thing that the computers don't understand is beauty. >Matemathics (how you are, or scientific) is too one important element >of the game. But, at the heat of a game between humans, the esthetical >(beauty) of Rxd4 is not comprised by, say us: +-, 1.2 pawns, >'incorrect sacrifuce', etc. >Kasparov plays Rxd4 and, to the look of us (humans), this is >beautiful. This is enhanced by the fact, that, by analysis carried >until now, with best defense of black (30... Rhe8) Best defense for black is probably 24...Kb6. Programs find 24...Kb6 after a long time and evaluate the position as a smalll advantage for black. 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.