Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:09:01 05/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2001 at 11:49:48, Sune Larsson wrote: >On May 19, 2001 at 10:26:32, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 19, 2001 at 09:36:00, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>>On May 18, 2001 at 15:47:05, Dan Andersson wrote: >>> >>>>The King plays the Old-Indian defence, and gets to exchange pieces thus getting >>>>a solid and passive position that seems playable or at least without any serious >>>>weakness. Whites bishop is by no means weak as it has the ability to >>>>singelhandedly defend the Queen side while the heavy pieces regroup and prepare >>>>the opening pawn break e4-e5, the bishop could make blacks defence against this >>>>hard by the threat of Bb5. Seeking a no existing initiative (or maybe kings >>>>position bonuses) The King erroneously goes on a rampage on the kings side, >>>>helping white advance his pawns. Passive defence is the only way in Old-Indian, >>>>black should defend passively making white pay for the e4-e5 advance. Clearly >>>>not a good opening for The King. >>>> >>>>Regards Dan Andersson >>> >>> >>> Nice summary - still the Old-Indian carries some poison... >>> The famous game Averbakh-Kotov, Zuerich 1953 springs to mind. >>> >>> [D]1r4nk/1p1qb2p/3p1r2/p1pPp3/2P1Pp2/5P1P/PP1QNBRK/5R2 b - - 0 30 >>> >>> Averbakh has just played 30.Ne2 when Kotov unleashes his shocking 30.-Qxh3+!! >>> The white king is forced to a heavy walk right into the mine field at f5. >>> >>> The whole Old-Indian game: >>> >>> >>>Averbakh,Y - Kotov,A [A55] >>>Candidats Tournament Zuerich (14), 23.09.1953 >>> >>>1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 Nbd7 4.Nc3 e5 5.e4 Be7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Rd1 >>>Bf8 10.Rb1 a5 11.d5 Nc5 12.Be3 Qc7 13.h3 Bd7 14.Rbc1 g6 15.Nd2 Rab8 16.Nb3 Nxb3 >>>17.Qxb3 c5 18.Kh2 Kh8 19.Qc2 Ng8 20.Bg4 Nh6 21.Bxd7 Qxd7 22.Qd2 Ng8 23.g4 f5 >>>24.f3 Be7 25.Rg1 Rf8 26.Rcf1 Rf7 27.gxf5 gxf5 28.Rg2 f4 29.Bf2 Rf6 30.Ne2 Qxh3+ >>>31.Kxh3 Rh6+ 32.Kg4 Nf6+ 33.Kf5 Nd7 34.Rg5 Rf8+ 35.Kg4 Nf6+ 36.Kf5 Ng8+ 37.Kg4 >>>Nf6+ 38.Kf5 Nxd5+ 39.Kg4 Nf6+ 40.Kf5 Ng8+ 41.Kg4 Nf6+ 42.Kf5 Ng8+ 43.Kg4 Bxg5 >>>44.Kxg5 Rf7 45.Bh4 Rg6+ 46.Kh5 Rfg7 47.Bg5 Rxg5+ 48.Kh4 Nf6 49.Ng3 Rxg3 50.Qxd6 >>>R3g6 51.Qb8+ Rg8 0-1 >>> >>>According to Bronstein, after 33.Kf5 Kotov had very little time left until >>>the time control. Otherwise he would surely have found Stahlberg's postmortem >>>suggestion 33.-Ng4!, as a cleaner and quicker way to victory. >> >>I doubt it. >>I am also not convinced that 33...Ng4 is a cleaner and quicker way to win. >> >>I think that Ng4 is a typical computer move and not a human move. >> >>Humans usually are going to think about sacrificing pieces only if they cannot >>find a good idea without sacrificing pieces and in this case there is a good >>idea without sacrificing pieces. >> >>stahlberg's analysis was done after the game and when people analyze after the >>game they are less afraid to sacrifice pieces because it is not their game. >> >>White can also try to defend after 33...Ng4 by 34.Nxf4 Rg8 35.Nh5 Rhg6 36.Qg5 >>Bxg5 37.Kxg4(this is Junior5.9's main line at depth 18 with score of 1.94 for >>black and the score was more optimistic for black at previous iterations) >> >>You can see that there are quiet moves like Rg8 and Rhg6 and humans need to find >>that white has no good defence by checking all the legal moves of white at every >>ply(remember that black is a full queen down so even moves that sacrifice a full >>queen like 36.Qg5 should be checked). >> >> >>Uri > > Scattering your doubts might be a huge task - but here are Bronstein's own > words from the tournament book: > > (After 33.Kf5) "...For an understanding of the next phase of the game, bear > in mind that Kotov had very little time left until the time control, and > naturally did not wish to spoil such a beautiful and unusual game with some > hasty move. Therefore, he decides to give a few checks, in order to get the > game past the 40th move and adjourn it. No doubt, there has to be mate in this > position; most probably, Kotov saw its basic outlines as far back as his 30th > move." > > (After 33.-Nd7) " Here's the proof: had the queen sacrifice been "accurately > calculated", Kotov would instead have chosen Stahlberg's postmortem suggestion, > 33.-Ng4, depriving white of the reply 34.Rg5. After 33.-Ng4, white would have > had to suffer colossal material losses in order to avert the mate threats." > > > 33.-Ng4 a typical computer move and not a human move?? Then we just disjoin > grossly in our chess views... > > In your line given above - 33.-Ng4 34.Nxf4 Rg8 35.Nh5 Rhg6 36.Qg5 Bxg5 > 37.Kxg4 white has to suffer playing with an exchange down. Fritz 6 gives > here -3.34 and lost for white. Junior 6 continues this variation with > 37.-Bf4+ 38.Kh3 Rxg2 39.Nxf4 exf4 40.Be1 R8g6 41.Bh4 Rxb2 and climbs to -2.74 > > Now if doubt is today's trend - I doubt if Averbakh really would have tested > Kotov any further in this endgame... > > Sune The evaluation after the forced line 33...Nd7 34.Rg5 Rf8+ 35.Kg4 Nf6+ 36.Kf5 Nxd5+ 37.Kg4 Nf6+ 38.Kf5 Ng8+ 39.Kg4 Bxg5 is also very optimistic for black and in the game white resigned few moves later. The game was longer but black had no reason to play for the fastest win when he was in time trouble. The main problem of programs is to see from the root position that after 39...Bxg5 white is losing but if you give them the position after 39...Bxg5 they can only see an evaluation of about +3 for black so I doubt if 33...Ng4 is the fastest win. Uri
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.