Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 14:09:20 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 16:25:07, Drexel,Michael 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 think Bob should criticize the move 9...0-0 rather than 10...Nxg4 in game 3. >9...0-0 is IMO a mistake. Chessbase native crafty 19.03 likes the stronger move: >9...Bb7. Black should castle short ONLY if white castles short first. >10...Nxg4 is of course reasonable. The moves 10...h6 and 10...g6 >have obviously also drawbacks. > >However the game 3 has nothing in common with the poisoned pawn variation. >Where is your counterplay after the simple 14.Bxe4 (14.Bxh6 was a mistake)? >There is no such counterplay except black would play 14...Nxe4 15.Bxh6 Bf5. >This complicated line is better for white. If you dont agree give a variation >please. Black has to show compensation for the piece. Right now I am unable to analyse a chess position, but I don't think I need to. You are talking about complex variations beginning 8-10 ply away from the move being discussed. That already suggests that things were not quite as simple as Bob seemed to think they were. >Junior wanted to play 14...Kh8 and after that white has big advantage. >The King simply gets into perfect safety by castling long. >The variation was unsound. Fischer or Kortchnoi would never play 9...0-0 >after 9.Bd2, with the obvious intention to castle long. I'm not sure if you are trying to refute my main point, which was: Nxg4 was not the terrible move that Bob said it was. To put this more strongly: Nxg4 is the sort of move a strong GM might play. > >Michael
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.