Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:30:50 07/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2002 at 23:53:42, Telmo Escobar wrote: >On July 01, 2002 at 12:44:02, Mike S. wrote: > >>On July 01, 2002 at 01:54:03, Telmo Escobar wrote: >> >>>On June 30, 2002 at 04:22:06, Mike S. wrote: >>>(...) >>>>[D]r1b1k2b/pp1p3p/2p5/3Nqp2/2B4Q/8/PP1P1PPP/n1BK3R w q - 0 16 >>>>16.Nc7+!! A typical computer move. >> >>> Alas, how can you call this a computer move? 16.Nc7+ is the first move I think >>>about! >>> This example makes me suspect the very idea of "computer move" is based upon a >>>misunderstanding. >> >>Normally, a chessplayer won't think first about a move which looks like a >>blunder (Qe5xNx7), at least for a few milliseconds. The knight goes to a guarded >>square and is "simply" lost (not so simply, as it turns out a few 100.000 >>calculated positions later). It's not at all the "normal" Nc7+ fork. >> >>It's a *19 ply* combination. So if you saw it immediatly that Nc7+ is playable: >>Congratulations > > When I think first about a move, I don't care about material. My first concern >in this kind of position is about to get important squares, lines or rows, to >deviate hostile pieces, etc. 16.Nc7+ looks obvious because Black queen is forced >to go far from the arena, while my remaining pieces work together against the >lonely Black king. I smell blood. > > To be sure, if I have enough time to calculate variations I'll think about >other moves -mainly 16.Re1- as well, and indeed it's likely that, provided other >move is evaluated as winning, I'll play the dull move, following the rule that >"apparently brilliant moves you better avoid, except there are no alternatives >left". In fact, brilliances are risky because they are so appealing that you >are prone to overlooking something- so better play dull whenever possible. > > But this cautious philosophy I follow only when there is plenty of time and no >pressure about the result. My first impulse will be to play the obvious Nc7+ >without calculating anything. > > Your belief that chessplayers normally won't think first about such a "blunder" >is wrong. Well, it may be statistically correct, but then don't forget that most >people play extremely bad chess. For this reason, when I think about how human >beings "normally" play, I don't think about the average player. I think about >the reasonably strong player, and for them a move like 16.Nc7+ catches the eye. > > Telmo I doubt it. I believe that Re1 is the first move that good players consider as good. The first thought of good players is what are the candidates moves and they see Re1 as winning. A typical mistake of weak players is not to consider candidate moves so they are the only players that may miss Re1. Good players are going to see it even in blitz and they are not going to take risks by Nc7+ unless they prove that it wins. It means that strong players are going to play Re1 at blitz and Nc7+ may be only a move that they play at long time control when they can prove that it is winning. Players usually care about the result also in blitz(if you do not care about the result in blitz then you are the exception). 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.