Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 01:12:24 07/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 1998 at 01:35:41, Amir Ban wrote: >On July 27, 1998 at 21:29:35, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>>>Wish we knew more about why he adopted a more open and "normal" >>>>>style of play against Rebel, while simply strangling Fritz... >> >>>>Remember "anti-GM"? >> >>>>Perhaps Anand was forced too? >> >>>>- Ed - >> >>>Nice marketing. :) >> >>>But anti-GM didn't make him castle queen-side in the first long game. He >>>did that on his own. I don't think an "anti-GM" strategy exists, much less >>>one that can force a GM to do something he doesn't want to do... >> >>Why should Anand play moves that are not optimal in his opinion? >>Quite dangerous IMO. >> >>I think you should re-read the goals of anti-GM, the why's, its birth. >> >>In the past at AEGON I have seen Rebel losing against grandmasters >>without any chance. After such a game it is very frustrating to realize >>your program didn't have just ONE little chance on counter play. >> >>anti-GM is about to deal with this problem. I don't know how good it is >>as 8 games is not much but in most of the 8 games it was Rebel who >>took the initiative which pleased me very much as this exactly is one >>of the goals of anti-GM. >> >>- Ed - > > >Ok, but you are not showing us how, where and why. > >There's a difference between the two games. > >In the second game, the queen maneuver put Anand under a lot of pressure. Anand >found an imaginative solution, which was I think very much on the gambling side. >Good play, bad result. > >The first game, looks like Anand just played a weak game. How to explain 28.e4? >and 29.Ka1? ? Not Rebel's fault of course, but what did Rebel do to deserve such >favours ? Bad play, good result (for Anand). This is not a game of the calibre >of DB-Kasparov game 2. Kasparov played like a GM there, and DB had to earn the >positions it reached. From my experience, and from yours too I think, you expect >a higher level of opposition. > >Amir I agree... but I wasn't even looking at "weak" moves. I looked at the O-O-O as accepting a tremendous risk, because the position was pretty open and got more open. Open enough that it almost blew up in Anand's face. When you do that normally, you are announcing your intention to "slug it out" (except for rare occasions where you simply can't play O-O due to a bishop or shredded pawn structure over there. But here it seemed that Anand was saying "here I come." After strangling Fritz, maybe he decided he was that much better? no idea.
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.