Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 12:15:33 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 12:10:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 07:59:54, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On February 15, 2003 at 13:06:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>I disagree with the "played like a super-GM" player, however. I doubt you >>>will find _any_ 2200 FIDE player that would play as badly as DJ played in >>>the first three games, up until move 30 or so. Game 1 would not have been >>>played by any 2000 player I know, myself included. So saying that it has >>>super-GM positional understanding is _way_ _way_ offbase. Yes, it played >>>good moves at times. But it also played _horrible_ moves at times. And I >>>am not just talking about tactically horrible moves such as the blunders that >>>Kasparov dropped on the board, I am talking about moves such as taking the >>>g-pawn and getting exposed to a horrific attack. >>> >> >>I can't agree with any of this. >> >>It would be good to back the statement that Junior played the "first three >>games, up until move 30 or so" worse than 2200 with some concrete examples of >>where a 2200 player would play better. The three games lasted 27, 30 & 36 moves, >>so what does this mean at all ? > > >Take game 1. I don't know of _anybody_ that would play like that, except >for some computers. Totally lost. > >Take game 2. Every GM criticized the idea of "winning the exchange" instantly. >It took me (and other lowly humans) a lot longer to conclude "this looks very >dangerous for white, where prior to accepting we all thought white had a better >position. > >Take game 3. Taking the g-pawn to open a file in your own king's face. Did >you hear _any_ IM/GM player that thought that was a good move? I didn't and >we had _several_ on ICC. I believe your comments on game 3 are much too simplistic. There are many examples in chess where one player exposes himself to an attack knowing that at least one of the following holds: - reasonable material compensation (the classic way to combat a gambit is to grab the pawn, and give it back later when it suits you best) - reasonable positional compensation This is the modern dynamic chess style: overcoming the stereotyped evaluation of a chess position to find the resources hidden beneath the surface. A good example is the poisoned pawn variation of the Sicilian Najdorf. It would be easy to simply dismiss this as a silly pawn grab, and I believe that many GMs were highly skeptical when it was first introduced. But history has shown it a viable defense. White has many attacking options but also has problems on the dark squares, a weaker centre, and a pawn is a pawn. I have studied this game 3 in some depth and certainly taking the g-pawn was a reasonable move. As well as netting the pawn black was able to gain counterplay against the white king which was rather loose in the centre. Was it ultimately sound? Thats hard to say, but it is definitely the sort of move a Kortchnoi or a Fischer might have played. <snip>
This page took 0.02 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.