Author: Prakash Das
Date: 00:50:03 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 forgot to add this: Kasparov is leading this super strong tournament with a stunning 4.5/5, and he won the strong blitz tournament on Monday ahead of Anand with a round to spare. At one point he was leading by as much as 2.5 points. So I suppose all his wins are discredited by your self because they were flawed, and that his opponents who played such perfect chess are lagging woefully behind? (Yes I am extrapolating from your comments and history of posts.) How far do you want to take your non-sensical point of view?. 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.