Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:36:56 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 18:22:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On October 25, 2002 at 12:18:38, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On October 25, 2002 at 09:55:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>On October 24, 2002 at 17:17:19, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here is a game where Kramnik played black, and he made the same sort of
>>>>sacrifice he made against Deep Fritz,
>>>
>>>Wrong!
>>>
>>>
>>>>but he made it against Anand, and he
>>>>got rapped for it. Crafty says this just drops a piece. I ran the position
>>>>after
>>>>Bxf2 to a pretty deep depth and the score didn't change as I even followed the
>>>>game for a move or two deeper. If you let Crafty search for a black move
>>>>there, it likes either the rook move as suggested in the annotation, or Nd8
>>>>if you let it search longer than one second... Score after Bxf2 is +3.5, score
>>>>after Nd8 is +.5.
>>>
>>>I think we could prove very quickly why it's way too early that we could rely on
>>>the research with our actual PC programs. Also you miss the complete problem of
>>>that game. It's not at all the same or similar to the Nxf7 against Deep Fritz.
>>
>>It is similar for one main reason: It simply drops a piece for nothing.
>>
>>So in that regard, it was a sacrifice that was unsound, which could be called
>>a blunder by most any definition since it causes an equal position to turn into
>>a dead lost position.
>
>What are you talking about? The position IS already lost! So it is NOT similar
>to the Kramnik-Deep Fritz position!
>
>Rolf Tueschen
>
I'm not sure what you are talking about. The position before the sac is not
lost for either side.
>
>>
>>>
>>>First the surprise. 15.h3 is already the refutation of the line! Tjat was the
>>>novelty. Kranik followed an older idea and lost his B on h5. That was the clue
>>>of h3. Kramnik still tried Bxf2 but Anand had analysed the line till the 27th
>>>move at home with his second. - That's all. Nothing to discover here, the whole
>>>line is not ok for Black.
>>>
>>>Why Kramnik played such not 100% analysed positions? Where did he do that? In
>>>Tilburg, aha, fine. Did he make such weak moves against Kasparov? Apparently
>>>not. Conclusion? Different situations with different importances.
>>>
>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>That seems to qualify as either a blunder or unsound sac... your choice. Here
>>>>is the relevant PGN:
>>>>
>>>>[Event "1998.10.23"]
>>>>[Site "Tilburg"]
>>>>[Date "1998.11.10"]
>>>>[Round "2"]
>>>>[White "Anand, Viswanathan"]
>>>>[WhiteElo "2795"]
>>>>[Black "Kramnik"]
>>>>[BlackElo "2780"]
>>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>>[Annotator "Crafty v19.1"]
>>>>{annotating for player Kramnik}
>>>>{using a scoring margin of +1.00 pawns.}
>>>>{search time limit is 1.00}
>>>>
>>>> 1. e4 e5
>>>> 2. Nf3 Nf6
>>>> 3. Nxe5 d6
>>>> 4. Nf3 Nxe4
>>>> 5. d4 d5
>>>> 6. Bd3 Nc6
>>>> 7. O-O Be7
>>>> 8. Re1 Bg4
>>>> 9. c3 f5
>>>> 10. Qb3 O-O
>>>> 11. Nbd2 Na5
>>>> 12. Qa4 Nc6
>>>> 13. Bb5 Nxd2
>>>> 14. Nxd2 Qd6
>>>> 15. h3 Bh5
>>>> 16. Nb3 Bh4
>>>> 17. Nc5 Bxf2+
>>>> ({7:+3.33} 17. ... Bxf2+ 18. Kxf2 Nd8 19. Kg1 c6 20. Bd3 b6 21.
>>>>Nb3 $18)
>>>> ({7:+0.15} 17. ... Rfe8 18. Bd2 a6 19. Rxe8+ Rxe8 20. Bxc6 bxc6
>>>>21. Qxa6 Re2 $10)
>>>> 18. Kxf2 Qh2
>>>> ({8:+4.91} 18. ... Qh2 19. Bxc6 bxc6 20. Qxc6 Qd6 21. Qxd6 cxd6
>>>>22. Ne6 Rfe8 $18)
>>>> ({8:+3.61} 18. ... Nd8 19. Qc2 Bg6 20. Nd7 a6 21. Nxf8 axb5 22.
>>>>Nxg6 Qxg6 $18)
>>>> 19. Bxc6 bxc6
>>>> 20. Qxc6 f4
>>>> 21. Qxd5+ Kh8
>>>> 22. Qxh5 f3
>>>> 23. Qxf3 Rxf3+
>>>> 24. Kxf3 Rf8+
>>>> 25. Ke2 Qxg2+
>>>> 26. Kd3 Qxh3+
>>>> 27. Kc2 Qg2+
>>>> 28. Bd2 Qg6+
>>>> 29. Re4 h5
>>>> 30. Re1 Re8
>>>> 31. Kc1 Rxe4
>>>> 32. Nxe4 h4
>>>> 33. Ng5 Qh5
>>>> 34. Re3 Kg8
>>>> 35. c4
>>>> 1-0
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.