Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 18:18:51 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 20:31:07, Jeffrey Wadsworth wrote:
>On October 27, 2002 at 19:03:55, Arshad Syed wrote:
>
>>One can't help but notice the difference in quality between the games played by
>>masters from a previous era such as Lasker, Tal, Fischer, Capablanca etc. The
>>games were so unique and singular, you couldn't help but remember some feature
>>of the game which made it really spectacular. For instance, a Queen sacrifice or
>>multiple piece sacrifices. By contrast, even the World Championship games of
>>recent times have nothing distinguishing which etches them in memory. This might
>>probably because of the closing gap between the top class players.
>>
>>Anyway, I was wondering how those masters would have coped with the chess
>>programs of today. Anyone here replay the positions from some of those legacy
>>masterpieces? One good one for example, would be the Queen sacrifice by Fischer
>>versus Byrne. Would he really be able to carry that through against Deep Fritz
>>or would he end up like Kramnik ... "...it could have been the most beautiful
>>game of my life."
>>
>>Regards,
>>Arshad
>
>
>
>My favorite game to check out with my chess engines is Botvinnik vs Tal game 6
>from their first championship match in 1960. 21...n-f4 is pretty sweet but the
>followup move 24...f3 allows white a chance to win it. It is incredibly deep.
>
>Going over the old master's games...hard to beat.
The game of the Century mentioned was not really that great of a game -- it only
because Fischer was about 13 that the game drew so much attention. The the Q
take was a blunder and every good program today sees that instantly. Fischer
also had a shorter mate. Ficher was getting so much attention because he was an
incredible chess prodigy and he was an American.
[Event "New York"]
[Date "1956"]
[White "Byrne, D."]
[Black "Fischer, R."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Opening "D97"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. d4 O-O 5. Bf4 d5 6. Qb3 dxc4 7. Qxc4 c6 8. e4
Nbd7 9. Rd1 Nb6 10. Qc5 Bg4 11. Bg5 Na4 12. Qa3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Nxe4 14. Bxe7 Qb6
15. Bc4 Nxc3 16. Bc5 Rfe8+ 17. Kf1 Be6
{
[d]r3r1k1/pp3pbp/1qp1b1p1/2B5/2BP4/Q1n2N2/P4PPP/3R1K1R w - - 0 1
}
Bxb6?? is a blunder!
18. Bxb6 Bxc4+ 19. Kg1 Ne2+ 20. Kf1 Nxd4+ 21. Kg1 Ne2+ 22. Kf1 Nc3+ 23. Kg1 axb6
24. Qb4 Ra4 25. Qxb6 Nxd1 26. h3 Rxa2 27. Kh2 Nxf2 28. Re1 Rxe1 29. Qd8+ Bf8 30.
Nxe1 Bd5 31. Nf3 Ne4 32. Qb8 b5 33. h4 h5 34. Ne5 Kg7 35. Kg1 Bc5+ 36. Kf1 Ng3+
37. Ke1 Bb4+ 38. Kd1 Bb3+ 39. Kc1 Ne2+ 40. Kb1 Nc3+ 41. Kc1 Rc2# 0-1
[Event "Wch23-Moscow"]
[Date "1960"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Botvinnik, M."]
[Black "Tal, M."]
[Result "0-1"]
[Opening "E69"]
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. d4 d6 6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. e4 c6
9. h3 Qb6 10. d5 cxd5 11. cxd5 Nc5 12. Ne1 Bd7 13. Nd3 Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Rfc8 15.
Rb1 Nh5 16. Be3 Qb4 17. Qe2 Rc4 18. Rfc1 Rac8 19. Kh2 f5 20. exf5 Bxf5 21. Ra1
Nf4 22. gxf4 exf4 23. Bd2 Qxb2 24. Rab1 {
[d][d]2r3k1/pp4bp/3p2p1/3P1b2/2r2p2/2N4P/Pq1BQPBK/1RR5 b - - 0 1
Crafty 19.01 SE - Petrosian style sees 24. ...f3 within seconds - Ruffian and
Ct15 are virtually instantaneous - there is so much going on here, ...f3 is not
the natural move for a human to make with the Q enprise. It is great move.
00:00:01.2 -0.75 7 251032 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Rc1 Qb2 Rb1
00:00:01.3 -0.75 7 327377 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Rc1 Qb2 Rb1
00:00:01.7 -0.38 8 573408 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Rc1 Qf5 Qf3 Qe5 Ne2 Rxc1 Nxc1
00:00:02.1 -0.38 8 732224 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Rc1 Qf5 Qf3 Qe5 Ne2 Rxc1 Nxc1
00:00:03.7 0.84 9 1749434 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Be4 f3 Qe1 Rxe4 Nxe4 Re8
00:00:05.3 0.11 9 2649616 f3 Bxf3 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Rc1 Qb2 Na4 Be5+ Kg2 Qxa2
00:00:06.1 0.11 9 3124571 f3 Bxf3 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Rc1 Qb2 Na4 Be5+ Kg2 Qxa2
00:00:07.7 0.11 10 4134746 f3 Bxf3 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Rc1 Qb2 Na4 Be5+ Kg2 Qxa2
00:00:08.7 0.11 10 4746442 f3 Bxf3 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Rc1 Qb2 Na4 Be5+ Kg2 Qxa2
00:00:22.0 -0.42 11 12512864 f3 Bxf3 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Bg4 Be5+ Kg2 Rxg4+ Qxg4 Rxc3
Bxc3 Qxb1 Bxe5 dxe5
00:00:26.0 -0.42 11 14601399 f3 Bxf3 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qc2 Bg4 Be5+ Kg2 Rxg4+ Qxg4 Rxc3
Bxc3 Qxb1 Bxe5 dxe5
00:00:51.1 -0.74 12 28694458 f3 Qd1 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qa3 Nb5 Qxa2 Bxf3 Rc2 Be3 Be5+ Kg1
a5
00:00:58.2 -0.74 12 32925321 f3 Qd1 Bxb1 Rxb1 Qa3 Nb5 Qxa2 Bxf3 Rc2 Be3 Be5+ Kg1
a5
}
24. ... f3 25. Rxb2 fxe2 26. Rb3 Rd4 27. Be1 Be5+ 28. Kg1 Bf4 29. Nxe2 Rxc1 30.
Nxd4 Rxe1+ 31. Bf1 Be4 32. Ne2 Be5 33. f4 Bf6 34. Rxb7 Bxd5 35. Rc7 Bxa2 36.
Rxa7 Bc4 37. Ra8+ Kf7 38. Ra7+ Ke6 39. Ra3 d5 40. Kf2 Bh4+ 41. Kg2 Kd6 42. Ng3
Bxg3 43. Bxc4 dxc4 44. Kxg3
Kd5 45. Ra7 c3 46. Rc7 Kd4 0-1
Bottom line - Computers have raised the bar in terms of expectations from GM
players - in general, I think top GMs of today are better than top GMs of
yesteryear -- as today's top athlete's are better than yesteryear. It is just
that computer give so much great visibility to GM mistakes. Go through just
about any old master game and you might find a clunker of a move here and there.
In terms of "quality of moves" - chess games between top correspondent players
are of the highest quality. Give a top player a couple of days to make a move
and they will not make a clunker.
This page took 0.01 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.