Author: Vine Smith
Date: 02:01:56 04/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2002 at 10:13:18, Sune Larsson wrote:
>On April 05, 2002 at 05:06:58, Vine Smith wrote:
>
>>On April 05, 2002 at 04:01:01, Sune Larsson wrote:
>>
>>>This was a French discussion. Emanuel chose a very risky continuation as black,
>>>which gave an intense game. Black overextended his position and was severly
>>>punished. Nice stuff for further analysis how to handle the black side.
>>>Fritz 7 is dangerous...
>>>
>>>PIII 800 256 MB Hash F7 book-tournament 120 minutes for the whole game.
>>>
>>>Game 2 will start here in 5 minutes...;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[Event "Emanuel 120'"]
>>>[Site "Kil"]
>>>[Date "2002.04.04"]
>>>[Round "1"]
>>>[White "Fritz 7"]
>>>[Black "Berg, Emanuel"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[ECO "C18"]
>>>[BlackElo "2500"]
>>>[PlyCount "67"]
>>>
>>>{128MB, Fritz7.ctg, PIII 800
>>>} 1. e4 {0} 1... e6 {13} 2. d4 {0} 2... d5 {11} 3.
>>>Nc3 {0} 3... Bb4 {(Sf6) 15} 4. e5 {0} 4... c5 {(Se7) 18} 5. a3 {0} 5... Bxc3+ {
>>>(La5) 11} 6. bxc3 {0} 6... Qc7 {(Se7) 19} 7. Nf3 {0} 7... b6 {(Se7) 13} 8. Bb5+
>>>{0} 8... Bd7 {13} 9. Bd3 {0} 9... Ba4 {(Se7) 16} 10. O-O {0} 10... Nd7 $5 {
>>>(Se7) Black goes for rapid Q-side development. 124} 11. Bg5 $146 {0.41/13 166}
>>>11... h6 {200} 12. Bh4 {0.09/14 0} 12... cxd4 {
>>>(c4) 12.- c4 was the safe way to play it. 166} 13. cxd4 {0.50/15 441} 13... Qc3
>>>{Now black has a clear grip on the Q-side but he's behind in the development
>>>of the K-side. 159} 14. Re1 {White has some options with Re3 0.56/15 110} 14...
>>>Rc8 {
>>>(Lg3) Or 14.-g5 immediately. Black is maybe overextending his position. 769}
>>>15. Rc1 $1 {15.Ra2? might be the old computer move. 0.47/15 331} 15... g5 {
>>>Consequent but very risky.The inclusion of 14.-Rc8 and 15.Rc1, before black's
>>>g5, looks afterwards to favour white. Black didn't like 15.-Qxa3 16.Ra1 Qb4 17.
>>>Qe2. 1242} 16. Bg3 {0.44/17 0} 16... g4 {(Tc7) 320} 17. Nd2 $1 {This move was
>>>not possible without 14.-Rc8 and 15.Rc1. Now black cannot play 17.-Qxd3
>>>because the c8-rook is en prise. 0.72/14 141} 17... Ne7 {(h5) 17.-Qxd4 looked
>>>too dangerous because of 18.Nb3 Bxb3 19.cxb3 Rxc1 20.Qxc1 with active bishops
>>>and intrusion on the c-file. 170} 18. Nb3 {1.03/14 255} 18... h5 {569} 19. Bf4
>>>$1 {Very strong. Black is now left with lots of weak squares, whereas white
>>>has plenty of dynamics. 1.09/15 0} 19... Ng6 {(Lxb3) 480} 20. Bg5 {1.31/13 165}
>>>20... O-O {(Tc6) 218} 21. Bd2 {
>>>The white bishops dominate the board. 1.88/14 195} 21... Qc6 {338} 22. Bb4 {
>>>1.88/14 0} 22... Rfe8 {(Dd2) 127} 23. Qd2 {1.81/14 0} 23... Kg7 {(a5) 86} 24.
>>>Qg5 {1.78/13 91} 24... Rh8 {(Lb5) 314} 25. c4 $3 {A tactical blow. 2.63/12 92}
>>>25... Bxb3 {(Tce8) 269} 26. Bxg6 {4.00/12 73} 26... fxg6 {160} 27. cxd5 {
>>>5.28/15 0} 27... Qb7 {(Dxc1) 136} 28. Qe7+ {9.66/13 40} 28... Kg8 {40} 29.
>>>Qxe6+ {9.66/13 0} 29... Kg7 {25} 30. Qe7+ {10.25/13 12} 30... Kg8 {23} 31. e6 {
>>>10.25/13 25} 31... Rh7 {(Sc5) 127} 32. Rxc8+ {#7/7 0} 32... Qxc8 {13} 33. exd7
>>>$1 {#6/6 13} 33... Qxd7 {(Txe7) 25} 34. Qf8# {#1/2 0} 1-0
>>>
>>>
>>>Sune
>>
>>An interesting first game in what should be a fascinating match. But I'm really
>>surprised that Berg wasn't interested in bisecting the board with 9...c4, a
>>motif which remained available to Black through move 12. I would have thought
>>this would be ideal anti-computer strategy, with the welcome bonus of also being
>>theoretically best (at least according to Pedersen's recent book , "The Main
>>Line French: 3.Nc3").
>>
>>Regards,
>>Vine
>
>
> Yeah, this cxd was an experiment made up otb. I know that Emanuel wants to
> play his own open game, and doesn't care two cents about finding some
> anti-computer move or idea. In this particular game he just didn't feel
> like closing up the whole Q-side.
>
> Game 2 was also interesting where Emanuel as white for the first time
> in his career had to face the Petroff... He always plays 1.e4, but so
> far noone has ever played this vs him... I'll be back later
>
> Sune
I believe this willful avoidance of considering the nature of his opponent, and
its consequent strengths and weaknesses, will prove his undoing. I saw above
that he had a clear win available in the second game, but it is indicative that
he did not find it. Trying to outcalculate Fritz will require a truly Herculean
effort from start to finish, whereas he could have a much easier time playing a
game where ideas rather than concrete lines are of greater importance. Perhaps
it is not his goal to win this match so much as to hone his tactical skills, but
I think all he may learn is that computer opponents cannot be handled in the
same manner as humans. Trying to play perfect chess, i.e. "playing the board,
not the man", is just an idealistic fantasy -- if you look at the recent item on
Chessbase's website regarding the endgame of two rooks versus rook and knight,
it becomes clear that "perfect" chess is beyond any human conception, so we
might as well play to emphasize our strengths and hide our weaknesses.
Regards,
Vine
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.