Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:17:30 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 17:09:20, Peter McKenzie wrote: >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. > Fantastic. Nxg4 is bad. It leads to White's advantage, as proven by Michael, now you insist that Nxg4 still was the "best" move. Yes, but not in a good line! Best in a bad line is still a "bad" move. You follow me? Michael then argued against 0-0. I said the same. The key move of the line must be earlier because after Nxg4 it's bad. What is difficult for you in this argumentation.Please tell us. Rolf Tueschen >> >>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.