Author: martin fierz
Date: 17:40:41 10/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 19:52:35, John Merlino wrote: >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. don't be so sure - this is just the type of position where every human has problems, even GMs. after all, christiansen didn't see through it either. in these positions, even amateurs equipped with a good chess engine can reach better conclusions than a GM is he wasnt using a computer to help him in the annotations. don't get me wrong, it's great to see yassers annotations, because in very many positions his opinion is worth more than any analysis by fritz & co. but this specific position is not one of them. i know that you looked at the line with Qh1+ Ke2 Qxg2+ Kd3 Qh3 with chessmaster and it was saying that black was better there! i looked at Qh1+ Ke2 Qxg2+ Kd3 Qf3+ Kc2 Qxb3+ Kxb3 f3 and concluded black was actually winning there until joachim rang corrected me by finding e5! at the end of this line which is a great move - it seems to me that white is better there but it's hard to say. joachim's conclusion was that Qh3 was a draw i think. but i can't find the messages any more here :-( >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? you can fire up chessmaster and compare the evaluations - if its anything like fritz it will give you a huge difference - so much that you should question yasser's analysis :-) >I do not know how to contact Yasser, so that is not an option. oh :-( i thought yasser had been contracted to analyse these games by your company, so i thought you had some means of contacting him. BTW, while it's of course great to have yasser's thoughts on these games, even more interesting would be what christiansen has to say after the games. what he thought, what he saw etc. i'll stop bickering now :-) it was a great match, and the annotations are very good too of course. 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.