Author: Amir Ban
Date: 06:29:12 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 16:00:30, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 14:58:22, blass uri wrote: > >>>In open positions DJ scored 4 out of 6, which is a TPR way above 2800. >>>In closed positions DJ scored 0,5 out of 3, which is rather bad. >> >>I think it scored 2 draws against akopian and adams in closed positions. > >The game vs. Adams was a Ruy Lopez exchange. This is surely not a blocked >position. It was an ending, quite open with White having the better pawn >structure and Black having the two bishops. I absolutely do not count this one >as a blocked position. In a blocked position the situation of the pawns is thus: >They face each other and can't move. Clearly this is not the case in this game. > >>I also do not think that it played clearly open positions against Bareev or >>Huebner. > >Huebner tried to block the position but he failed. And at the first opportunity >he made a big tactical mistake, and committed another one by resigning too >early. Bareev sacrificed a pawn early on, so it had nothing to do with the type >of the position. The only question in that game was: Can Bareev prove he has >enough compensation or not. The ending was quite tricky, also having nothing to >do with blocked positions. > >Besides, you (and all the others!) do not come up with arguments to prove that I >am wrong on my thesis that computers obtain GM results, but that their knowlegde >is far behind. Does nobody want to disagree with this!? Nobody wants to question >my remark that calculation power doesn't solve the problems computer programs >are still facing!? Come on guys! > This is a one sided view. No doubt Junior showed problems at Dortmund, which is why it scored only 4.5 points. One the other hand, those 4.5 points were earned honestly, almost all of them on the strength of positional rather than tactical understanding. There was very little tactics at Dortmund, because the opponents were good enough not to allow it. This was most obvious against Bareev. Boris Alterman told me before the game: "There will be no tactics whatever against him, and if you start seeing tactics, it will be bad news because it means you are already lost." IMO Junior showed better judgement of several positions than the GM opponent. Bareev did not blunder the pawn, he sac'ed it, and Junior quickly pointed out that he did not enough compensation for it. Junior showed better judgement than Leko after the 28'th move, by insisting correctly that black is now better, after which Leko sac'ed again into an endgame he thought he could not lose but he was wrong. Akopian clearly mishandled his opening, and didn't know what hit him after Nfd7. I think it was his dumb luck that he was not immediately lost. He had no intention of putting his knight on f8 and rook on g8 and play a miserably passive game. I was very glad that Junior was white rather than black in this game because I think a computer would be crucified for playing like Akopian. Anand, too, was frustrated in his attempts to provoke the closing of the position. He later said that after Junior failed to play c4, he thought of playing the silly maneouvre Bc2 and Qd3 to incite c4 again ! In the end he was the one to look silly after Qc7, a6 and Nh5. Leko tried to play a closed game, but he didn't get what he wanted. I've heard several people in Dortmund say that the GM's are starting to adopt a computer style. In particular the game Anand-Adams was one in which Anand showed that he can be a very strong computer. Amir
This page took 0.03 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.