Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:20:03 01/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2001 at 12:04:46, Ernst Walet wrote: >On January 09, 2001 at 12:00:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>first 3 games v/d Wiel versus Rebel i had >>som trust in John. He missed win after win, BUT he had >>each time a won position, so no big deal. He would win >>one i betted. >> >>He indeed did. John won the 4th game. >> >>However in the weekend we had national competition and probably >>John's memory about computers has been wiped in the weekend as he >>might have had some easy opponents who gave away pawn after pawn. >> > >Your memory seems to have had a great blow as well, because the game today was >game 4 and John won the 3rd game. i had posted already before i could correct it indeed. >Ernst. > >>To my big surprise he opened this day with a line that's completely >>in the computer street. Big tactics everywhere, and of course mankind >>gets exhausted then, that he then loses an endgame with a pawn >>less, probably somewhere missing a draw here or there that's no >>big surprise then... >>...that loss is a result of getting completely exhausted at the >>start of the game where tactics ruled! >> >>Anyway completely the wrong strategy against a computer! >>Let's see whether he recovers tomorrow but if he plays in the >>same way again: going out for a tactical fight against the computer >>where we already know that John is tactical under my own tactical >>skills, that's really going to be a happy time for the computer >>then... >> >>So this was a free point for Rebel. Tactical bad human goes combining >>against computer and loses, that's how i would summarize this game. >> >>That the actual loss happens somewhere far in endgame is no big deal >>after getting exhausted for so many hours. Note it is again a tactical >>loss in the endgame, but the KQP KQ would have been lost by John anyway >>even if his king would not have been in check from the g1 promotion >>field, so it was quite a clear loss in the endgame, despite the fritz6 >>comments on the homepage: >> "24. Ra1! >> White sacrifices a pawn for a positional >> advantage on the queen's side" >> >>This comment is complete nonsense of course. both 1 pawn on queen side, >>if there would be compensation for white it would be on the kingside >>as the e7 pawn from rebel can't advance. >> >>But especially commercial programs are very good in winning such >>positions when mankind gets tired after an exhausting tactical battle. >> >>In the end the computer usually wins it... >> >>I would consider the position already lost for white here taking >>subjective circumstances into account. >> >>For sure playing a long game with a pawn less is no good plan against >>the computer! >> >>Even worse the grabbing of a pawn in the opening at b7 after which >>the computer gets very active pieceplay! >> >>Of course a CLEAR result of that was that he started endgame with a pawnless >>as v/d Wiel fell for some tactical exchanges that won a pawn for black. >> >>Some GMs never learn! >> >>I'd say how about grabbing a pawn from the computer tomorrow and see >>whether it can also mate you?
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.