Author: Peter Berger
Date: 11:12:19 05/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2003 at 11:07:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 15, 2003 at 06:31:39, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 15, 2003 at 05:33:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On May 14, 2003 at 18:53:05, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>>Or maybe neither? >>>> >>>>I have only looked at the analysis of game 5, move 16 so far. Let's try with >>>>Huebner's mainline: >>>> >>>>16. g3 Nh2+ 17. Kf2 Ng4+ 18. Ke1 Qh3 19. Rg1 Nd7 20. e4 dxe4 21. Nxe4 Qh2 22. >>>>Rf1 Qg2 23. Bc1 >>>> >>>>Here Huebner only gives 23. ...Nh2 when 23. ...Nf6 looks like a clear >>>>improvement IMHO and I think if someone has problems it isn't black. >>> >Your [Peter and you] 23...Nf6 is IMO NOT better because of the line Huebner gave >before: NxN, NxN and then f5 which excludes the black B. Huebner: "White has a >won game." That you two can't understand that is no argument. The idea in "my" position is slightly different: 23..Nf6 24. Nxf6+ gxf6 25. f5 Nh2 26. Rf4 Nf3+ 27. Rxf3 Qxf3 when also g3 hangs and a permanent blocking of the bishop seems impossible. Don't forget we are discussing Kasparov's 16th move here and millions or angst are given as reasons why he discarded it. I don't think Huebner would say that the position at move 27 is won for white and as I said I don't think black has problems here. >You two, me included, are almost nothing without the help of computers. Speak only for yourself, please. Peter
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.