Author: Peter Berger
Date: 13:12:06 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 15:54:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 15:15:33, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>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> > >I want to support those who say, maybe Nxg4 was forced - although I agree with >those who say that the position is probably lost for Black. > >And then I conclude [what every chessplayer did] that the crucial position of >the line must be earlier in the line. IF Black is FORCED to take the Pawn g4, >then such a position is already letally wounded - this is what all the masters >said and DJ won't find a perfect defense here. But having said that does not >mean that the win for White is _easy_. Because it still requires permanent >precision. GM are known to be able to do that. Period. > >Question remains, where is the crucial point for a better move for Black. >If that's in the book then this is a fault of GM Alterman who had time enough to >check such moves [g4] as typical anti-comp. Sorry, I remember that Sandro Necchi >is the responsible. Well, then we have a typical problem for CC because in case >the book author is no GM or no anti-comp expert, then he won't find the danger >in g4. > >Rolf Tueschen What do I miss here? Nxg4 looked ugly, still it was a good move - I haven't seen any analysis suggesting a win for white in this game.
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.