Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:56:11 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 13:14:09, Chessfun wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 13:00:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 16, 2000 at 11:37:09, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2000 at 11:12:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2000 at 10:03:52, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 15, 2000 at 04:04:05, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 14, 2000 at 16:15:17, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>[Event "Open Dutch CC 2000"] >>>>>>>[Site "Leiden NED"] >>>>>>>[Date "2000.10.14"] >>>>>>>[Round "02"] >>>>>>>[White "Tiger"] >>>>>>>[Black "Nimzo 8"] >>>>>>>[Result "1-0"] >>>>>>>[ECO "D20"] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Bxc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Bf5 >>>>>>>8.Nbc3 e6 9.a3 Qd7 10.O-O Be7 11.Be3 O-O-O 12.Rc1 f6 13.exf6 gxf6 >>>>>>>14.Na4 Nd5 15.Bc4 Na5 16.Ba2 Bg4 17.Nac3 Nxc3 18.Rxc3 Kb8 19.f3 Bh5 >>>>>>>20.b4 Nc6 21.b5 Na5 22.Qa4 b6 23.Nf4 Bf7 24.Rfc1 Bd6 25.Nd3 Rhg8 >>>>>>>26.Nc5 Bxc5 27.dxc5 e5 28.Bxf7 Qxf7 29.cxb6 cxb6 30.Qc2 Qg6 31.Qa2 f5 >>>>>>>32.Kh1 f4 33.Bg1 h5 34.Qe2 Qf6 35.a4 h4 36.h3 Qg5 37.R1c2 Rd7 >>>>>>>38.Qe1 Rdg7 39.Qe4 Rd7 40.Qe2 Rgd8 41.Qe1 Qe7 42.Qe4 Qg5 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>>Assuming that the sacrifice is accepted, 45. a5 seems easy to find, but I wonder >>>>>>what would have happened had black tried to keep lines closed with 45. ... b5, >>>>>>which is also possible for a program to find. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If 45... b5 46. Qe2 Rd5 47. Bb6! is not clearly winning, but makes black suffer. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not impressed with Thorsten's line: 45... b5 46. Qb4 Rd5 47. a6 Qf6 48. Qc3 >>>>>Qd6 I think black is safe and clearly better. White is completely passive >>>>>guarding c6, his back rank, and needs to stop the passed b-pawn somehow after a >>>>>black Kc8. >>>>> >>>>>It seems to me that the sacrifice is interesting, but doesn't lead to any white >>>>>advantage. The position looks dead even until black's terrible 52... a6. What's >>>>>wrong with 52... Qg6 ? Other options exist, e.g. to play 48... Rd1 (instead of >>>>>48... Qf6), which more or less kills any notion that white will win this game. >>>>> >>>>>Amir >>>> >>>> >>>>This is not fair. >>>> >>>>You can't blame the loss on a bad/weak move by black. Not after white >>>>sacrificed material. The loss was caused by the Rc6 sacrifice. >>>> >>>>Or at least that is what we are supposed to believe. >>> >>> >>>IMO the loss is caused by the Rc6 sac. >>>The fact is black could not refute the move in the given time control. >>>Regardless how sound or unsound the move actually is, if it cannot be beat >>>at the table in the end that is all that matters. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >> >>That is your right to believe, of course. However, _I_ believe that >>other programs could (and would) defend this position better. I personally >>don't like winning due to mistakes by the opponent. I would rather win due >>to exceptional play by myself. > >Every game is won by the opponents mistakes, this can be caused by >exceptional play and in this case that seems likely. Either way to >lose is caused by a mistake somewhere. > >Sarah. I'm not convinced. If we start off in a KBN vs K ending, as an example of a known outcome endgame, the KBN wins if that side plays correctly. The other side loses if he plays _perfectly_. It is possible that this is true from the initial position. It is possible that the initial position is also drawn, or even won for black if it is a zug position. But I don't believe that to win my opponent has to make a mistake in every case. And I certainly don't want to give up material and then hope that he does make a mistake. If he doesn't, I _just_ made a big mistake by giving up the material...
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.