Author: Steven Juchnowski
Date: 16:36:05 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 08:35:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 21, 1999 at 02:58:33, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>> >>>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. >>> >> >>Bob, I know you are not a big fan of Kasparov, but I think you should give him >>his due. His game against Topalov today was truly spectacular. As for him >>winning games "due to opponent errors", how else is he supposed to win? >> >>And regarding the game you mentioned (Yermolinksy-Kasparov) I disagree with your >>assessment. White's light squared bishop was a wretched piece for the entire >>game. Kasparov had a textbook good knight vs. bad bishop position, which he >>converted nicely. >> >>If you have analysis proving a draw for White, I would love to see it, but it >>wouldn't change my general opinion about the nature of Black's advantage in the >>game. >> >>--Peter > >As you probably know, I had crafty giving analysis that morning, and we had >several GM observers, from gahan, thru roman and others. At least two were >willing to comment and the consensus was that black was better, but not winning. > >Yes the knight was better, yes white had pawn weaknesses. But black had no >pawn breaks either. The computers (several running) couldn't find any way for >black to make progress and indeed the scores remained constant for many moves, >until one point where white made a move and the computers instantly went from >-.2 to -1.3 and then -3.x... > >I didn't intent to make this a 'big deal'. Someone posted that they had found >a move that likely 'holds' against the "brilliant sac Rxd4". I simply added >that such "finds" aren't unusual at all. His sacs tent to 'psych' his opponents >just like in the days of Tal, where most of his sacrifices are now known to be >unsound. Quite right. Most of Tal's sacrifices were unsound but were designed to deliver a psychological impact. On the subject of chess sacrifices let me quote a passage from from a 1950's book "Chess Traps, Pitfalls & Swindles, How to Set Them and How to Avoid Them" "Any sacrifice, any combination, any gimmick, be it ever so intricate or subtle, stands or falls by your opponents reaction." The psychological aspect of the sacrifice is the more important parameter than the soundness of the sacrifice, at least with human opponents. Maybe that is what Kasparov had in mind. A sacrifice against a program has to be sound as the program will not be fazed by the move. It seems this thread fails to recognize that Kasparov's opponent was human. Would Kasparov have played the sacrifice against a Fritz, Junior, Hiarcs, or Crafty?
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.