Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 06:57:33 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 08:39:25, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On January 31, 2003 at 08:15:57, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On January 30, 2003 at 20:54:11, Ronnie Cole wrote: >> >>>HOW COULD A ELO 2847 blunder two games in a row like that?? >>> >>>there is a lot of suspense surrounding the match now >>>at first it was thought he would crush junior now no one knows, VERY EXCITING. >>>KASPAROV IS SMART >> >>Maybe you should read and use your common sense before making such unfounded >>accusations: >> >>[snipped from chessbase] >> >>At the time we thought Kasparov was trying to play for a win. After the game he >>said he thought the rook move was the easiest way to force a draw. After the >>apparently forced 32...Qxd4 33.Rxh7+ Kxh7 34.Qxf5+ is a perpetual check draw. >>Unfortunately for humanity, in the diagram 32...Nxd4!! is a winner. >> >>This seems impossible because of 33.Ng6+ Kg8 34.Ne7+ and it looks like black has >>to take a repetition. But 34...Kf8! and now if 35.Rxh7 Nb3+!! ouch, it's mate! >>This is what Kasparov missed with 10 minutes on his clock. 36.Kc2 (36.axb3 Qd1#) >>36...Na1+ 37.Kc3 Qd2+ 38.Kc4 b5+ 39.Kc5 Qd6#) >> >>Kasparov tried to bail out with 35.Nd5 but resigned after 35...Qg7 36.Qxd4 Rxd5 >>0-1. >> >>[snip over] >> >>Being rated 2847 does not guarantee that you don't overlook these tactics >>especially with only 10 min and 8 moves to go... >> >>Game 2 was not a blunder: >> >>[snipped from chessbase] >> >>The second game started ten minutes late, with Garry Kasparov entering the room >>with a forceful stride. After shaking hands with Shay Bushinsky, who was >>operating the computer today, Kasparov played the aggressive Sicilian Defence >>which went down unorthodox lines. Slowly he built up a good position, securing >>(and then to everybody's surprise abandoning) a commanding square for his knight >>(d4). But he clearly had the upper hand. Just when it became clear he was >>winning the champion was lured into giving a long check with his queen. It >>looked like a very normal move that could do no harm, but as it turned out the >>computer had a dramatic defence. Kasparov saw the entire line immediately after >>he had played the move. He sat there shaking his head in disbelief, while the >>computer found the drawing line and sacrificed its queen to achieve it. >> >>During his stage interview after the match Kasparov said he had seen the move >>25...f4 thought that it was winning, but he decided that the queen check on a1 >>did not change anything. "It was a human move," he said. "You see a check like >>that and you simply play it. But I immediately realised that I had let it off >>the hook." Later on Kasparov and his seconds discovered that the move 25...f4 >>was not so clear after all and that White could probably draw after 26.h3. >> >>[snip over] >> >>I suggest you read all 3 articles and use your common sense... >> >>http://www.chessbase.com >> >>Game 2 report: >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=762 >> >>Game 3 report: >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=766 >> >>Jonas > >I suggest: >Dont take everything serious what MIG or others write on chessbase.com! >This is advertising and not always the truth. > >Qa1+ was a blunder for 2800+. >Nb3+ is a simple tactic for Kasparov. 10 minutes for 8 moves is no time trouble. >of course Kasparov didnt lost on purpose. >there exist surley better ways to lose on purpose :) > >Michael Now we see why reading is important when drawing conclusions, if you had read what i wrote you would have discovered that i said "read AND use your common sense..." You failed to do both when replying to my post. My post was in reply to someone stating that Kasparov lost on purpose, not a "believe all you read" post, of course you should take media hype with a grain of salt, hence the common sense statement... Kasparov HATES to lose more than any player i know of, so common sense dictates he did not lose the game on purpose. Kasparov will get more money if he wins, common sense wins again. No matter what rating a player has he can still blunder, well goes without saying, but common sense persuaded me to state the obvious :) Kasparov has so far chosen VERY risky openings and previuosly unthinkable openings against computers, this is admirable and have resulted in very interesting play on both sides, but the risk factor also leaves holes in his defence... Now you said yourself that you did not think that Kasparov lost on purpose, well that was my point when i replied to Ronnie cole... I am sooo tired of people seeing ghosts asociated with these types of events, maybe chessplayers/affictionados are more exposed to being paranoid than people outside chess i don't know, but one thing is sure it is really annoying. Regards Jonas
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.