Author: Albert Silver
Date: 17:44:15 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
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.
It's an interesting argument. Dvoretsky, in his book on tactics agreed that
winning is by all means a powerful argument, but is that all there is to it?
I'll add the collected results of Khalifman and a bunch of GMs and IMs from St.
Petersburg, who analyzed every single game of his (published in 4 volumes or
available as a CD by Chess Assistant) and concluded that roughly only 30% of his
sacrifices were correct. So? It's hard to say. As a human player, it is much
easier to fall on the limitations of my calculations and justify a sacrifice
with my intuition. On a sporting level (limited time, pressure, etc...) one
cannot properly criticize such a decision... for a human player.
Why is there a difference? When a human player makes such a decision, it most
certainly takes into account the factors I mentioned, but not so for the
program. What is the program basing it on? If you are certain it is because of
special knowledge the opponent didn't have (in other words, you just play
better), then great, it's a revolution. If not, it's Pandora's Box. This is by
no means to criticize Tiger Gambit, but to clarify the reservations of a few.
Personally, I think it definitely knows things many of its opponents do not, as
illustrated by certain attacks it conducted (this one is merely the latest), but
it is still very much in the rough (and what a rough!). I _don't_ think we are
watching an advanced case of the Novag Super Constellation though. For those who
don't know, it was a chess computer that had special code for a rook sac on
f6/f3 and the bishop sac on h7, which it played every chance it got.
Albert
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.