Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:57:44 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 19:02:58, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 17:17:30, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 > >Seems you are getting pretty excited and starting to imagine things. Please >show me where I said 'that Nxg4 still was the "best" move'. The " " was such a relativation. Best by GM approval in your understanding I thought. No big deal I wasn't excited. :) > >I said Nxg4 is a reasonable move, a move so reasonable that a strong GM might >have played it if given the chance. Yes, I understood what you said, but you still not what my point was. I saw that Amir also missed it. Bob saw it. The point is easy. The whole line, Peter, is bad for Black. See the post from Michael. I gave the number to Peter Berger. Michael showed, and others before on the servers, that White had advantage. Not to be proven with whole lines of 40 plies but still visible. Of course Kasparov played exactly NOT the line that led to advantage. So back to Nxg4. After g4 played, yes, then Nxg4 might be the best move. But NOT in a sense that it's a good move. If Nxg4 is a "good" move then the whole lie is bull, that is the summary of that line. And the early 0-0 is the reason for that mess. So, to begin with you must avoid to play 0-0. Let me add what I had in mind with my posting about Kasparov's lies about a going back to the science origins of the challenge. The point is that Kasparov spoiled the whole science aspect of that event now, because he simply did NOT play like a super GM in certain moments. And he blundered. Ok, fine, GM do blunder! But the sort of blunder is a bit odd for Kasparov. And then take the final two games. This is awful. There was no challenge anymore. There was money and pride, even anxiety? Sorry for that here. > >Are you trying to disagree with me on this point? I hope I explained how I meant it. > >>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. > >Sure O-O might have been a mistake, so what. I really hope,also for your own baby, that you don't take this lightly. 0-0 is a huge mistake. And g4 is something progs must consider from now on. That DJ defended with power cannot change the verdict. 0-0 was a gross positional bluder from DJ. Amir still thinks that DJ was ok. I hope we can discuss this a bit deeper here. Amir was normally on the science side and not on ballyhoo. I can only assure you and all the rest here that I would be happy if comps COULD avoid such weaknesses! I am on neither side. I am NOT here to dump CC for their alleged "chess stupidiness". I am independent. If pro any side I am pro science. I want to know the truth. Not propaganda. I think that also a CC layman can possibly make good arguments if they are scientifically sound. And in all the debates here today it was NOT about programming details but the interpretation of the chess and also of the strength and the differences to DB2. I can't remember if you were here in 1997 but if yes, you can remember that already then people here argued that the commercial progs of that time were as "strong" as DB2. Because they found all the moves. But they simply were slower. Today the same fraction argues that NOW commercials are even stronger because of the software progress, but - they are still factor 100x slower than DB2. And Bob said this is a killer. Now I am out of such debates because I have no idea what 100x means for the engine and its chess. But from the science perspective I want to read a sound counter argument without too muich hand-waving. And I can't find it. And therefore I am in such a debate here. Not because I am impostering expert status. And I repeat I have no agenda whatsoever. Exception my dedication for science and logic. Not the worst in such a group here, no? :) Rolf Tueschen > >> >>What is difficult for you in this argumentation.Please tell us. >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >> >> >>>> >>>>Michael
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.