Author: Prakash Das
Date: 00:42:37 01/22/99
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... I have to respond strongly to this post. It's clear to me that Bob Hyatt has no concept of competitive tournament play at the highhest levels. You comment for example that "_every_ game.. has at least one blunder is non-sensical.. Of course every loss and win is due to one or more blunders by the party.. A blunder is a large term covering many ascepts of bad play. If a computer or human wins a game, it's because there was a "blunder" committed. What then is your point? That Kasparov's opponent's lose because they are intimidated by him is not his problem. That's their problem, this is a competitive sport. Don't many humans get psyched when playing computers? So, in that case, I will discount ALL computer wins against humans. I will also discount ALL wins by that computer against other computers too because it won because of blunder(s) by the other. It's the evolving world of chess.. years ago, when computer training was not an integral part of chess training, Tal and Morphy and others produced such sacrificial attacking games. When told that later analysis showed that his sac was flawed, he said: "That does not matter to me. The result at the board is what counts to me". Now, if Tal had still playing competitive chess today, perhaps he would adjust his play accordingly, and still win. Why? Because great players like Tal, Kasparov (and a very few others) would know how to adjust. So, to use your logic, I discount all wins by your computer Crafty. You have yet to prove that(1) it plays perfect chess (2) _never_ wins due solely to blunders by it's opponents (3) since it psyches its opponents, it's results don't count. And after all this, I will discredit any win by saying that it was due to a blunder by the other party. The move ..Rxd4! was played under the stress of a high level tournament condition. It introduced a labyrinth of complications, the acceptance of which led to a stunning game. If this move makes Kasparov a bad player, I wonder how much more of a bad player is Topalov for playing ..cxd4? In conclusion, I seriouly doubt your judgement regarding matters non-chess programming. Fairness is demonstrated by actions, not by words.. and your long history of prejudice against Kasparov is a strong deterrent for me to take your comments seriously. I am sorry to say this (however your work regarding crafty is a different matter). Prakash Das
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.