Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:24:38 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
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 So you _think_ that is why the computer took the pawn? Rather than just "taking a pawn?" BTW most programs would have played that move. Do you think they _all_ understood what was going to come down that file as a result of their _voluntarily_ opening it up to win a pawn??? I don't. At least not mine... > >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 0.01 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.