Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:49:56 05/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2002 at 14:09:07, Robin Smith wrote: >On May 24, 2002 at 00:01:02, Uri Blass wrote: > >>Kasparov did not lose the 6th game by h6. > >Here is what John Nunn has to say about h6: > >"7. N1f3 h6? But Karpov never played like this! This move forces White to >sacrifice a piece, but the resulting attack is so dangerous that there are >almost no human players willing to take Black's side. This line seems >particularly inadvisable against a computer: a wide-open position, tactical >ideas on all sides and a vicious attack for the silicon monster." > >Even if at some future date you are eventually proven technically correct and >that the position after h6 is not just a forced loss for Black, from a practical >and psychological standpoint h6 was a very poor choice. > >Robin h6 is definitely losing yes, both objective and subjective. We will never know whether Kasparov played it on purpose or not. There are many different statements by kasparov. Both one that he didn't expect it to play that aggressive (with a4!) and the other statement is that it was a slip of the finger. So one of the Kasparov statements was completely lied. I tend to agree with IM Jeroen Bosch (national trainer netherlands) who is following all of Kasparov's games already for the past 25 years or so. Jeroen Bosch also watched live many games Kasparov has played and his statement also recently was that when Kasparov was in an opening he normally doesn't play, that his memory had left him simply. Perhaps Kasparov simply had forgotten theory here and played h6, obviously not missing Nxe6, but obviously seeing that it didn't mate him within a few moves, so not giving Nxe6 not a single second of attention. Only counting on Ne4 there probably. Kasparov however MUST have known Nxe6 himself for white one day. Because caro-kann was not getting played around 1997 by anyone against Kasparov, definitely not that line, it is very likely that Jeroen Bosch' statement is most likely one. In many lines which Kasparov plays with black sacrafices like Nxe6 are refuted by Qe7. Also i do not believe that against computers playing Qe7 is worse than Ke7. Instead i am very sure that fxe6 is asking more for a zero (king at half open e-file) than playing Qe7 with Kd8. Apart from having a lost position there, the real losing mistake is obviously b5 which gives white a clear 'attack' goal. I am sure however that white would have won anyway there, but for idiots who do not understand how computers work, they do not know which positions you can play against them and which you can't play. Obviously a very passive program like Fritz3 or Fritz4 or Genius3 at the time would have lost with white here. My current guess is that Jeroen Bosch is closest to the truth, because if we look further in the game after Qe7, then Kasparov plays completely suicidal moves like b5. It is hard for me to imagine that this move even against passive programs like Gnuchess would have drawn the game. Knowing kasparov, if he prepares something, he prepares it deep. So that he simply had forgotten all about theory, and kasparov *never* ever plays caro-kann and has zero feeling for it obviously, we sure see that he played a completely suicidal line, and also kept blundering in it. In 2002 i can't explain moves like b5 anyhow. Also for someone who doesn't know shit about caro-kann, this is a bad move in *any* defensive position. Kasparov played it as if the game was sold.
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.