Author: John Merlino
Date: 16:52:35 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 16:52:37, martin fierz wrote: >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 I, personally, certainly could not refute anything that any GM says! I'm just a patzer. However, Seirawan does mention Qh1+ in the annotation for 58...f2+. So, I expect that he felt that Qh1+ in that position is superior to the not-mentioned Rf4, but who am I to say? I do not know how to contact Yasser, so that is not an option. jm
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.