Author: martin fierz
Date: 13:52:37 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 15:51:26, John Merlino wrote: >On October 09, 2002 at 15:12:24, martin fierz wrote: > >>On October 09, 2002 at 15:07:16, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On October 09, 2002 at 11:01:45, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>>On October 09, 2002 at 05:02:15, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>http://chessmaster.ubi.com/NR/exeres/DDFE83D9-77B9-40D8-852F-EA1D1B982B28.htm >>>>> >>>>>The analysis seems very interresting, but could we get the analysis in pgn >>>>>format? >>>>>It's way easyer to look at it while browsing the game >>>>> >>>>>Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>>There's a big error in the analysis. In game 3, 58...f2+ was indeed losing as >>>>stated, but Black had at least a draw with 58...Rf4! The article says Black was >>>>lost anyway. >>> >>>I would not necessarily call this an error. It appears to be Yasser's opinion >>>that Black is lost after the rook sacrifice. He is probably in the minority with >>>this opinion, but this opinion does have the advantage that the result of the >>>game itself bears it out. >> >>...which only makes it worse! that is no advantage at all, that's just >>commenting according to result, which is a common error. >>there is another error in that Qh1+ instead of ..f3 will draw, and it's not even >>mentioned in the analysis. yasser just didnt look at some critical lines and you >>say that that is an advantage?? >> >>aloha >> martin > >I was not saying anything about the analysis being correct or incorrect, because >I was saying that it appears to be his opinion that the game is lost after the >rook sacrifice. This is obvious given his comments: > >"difficult to fathom" >"the best he can achieve following his Rook sacrifice" > >I AM sure that he looked at the critical lines. Yasser is a pro. > >jm you know, it is completely un-obvious that ...Qh1+ instead of ...f3 loses (e.g. susan polgar, also a pro, suggested that it even wins!), and it is also completely unobvious that the Rf4 move instead of f2+ loses. yasser does not even mention those moves! if he had seriously looked at them, he would either have given a refutation, or have suggested them as improvement. throughout the whole game 3 commentary i get the impression that yaz is not happy with the way larry plays this game. no wonder, because it's completely against his style (but in larry's style). why don't you just ask yaz about these moves? i'll bet you he will change his mind :-) or can you come up with a refutation of my claim that Qh1+ instead of ...f3 will lead to a draw? aloha martin
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.