Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:50:51 05/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2003 at 14:12:19, Peter Berger wrote: >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. Blabla! Your position with gxf6 is a completely different than what I meant. Of course in that case (gxf6) probably a different chunk will executed. What I was telling was, that Huebner knows such positions better than we mortals. And please follow the lines given if you want to debate such positions. Where did I say that after gxf6 I wanted to play f5? > >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 How could I forget that we (let's better say Huebner!) discussed Kasparov's move 16? And indeed Huebner wanted to say that White has an almost won position, yes, that was it what he said. At least g3 was the only move that could win. > >>You two, me included, are almost nothing without the help of computers. > >Speak only for yourself, please. Oh, excuse me... Do you really want to challenge Huebner? Either you are someone else under pseudonym or you are impostering. And you want to explain that the opening with gxf6 is a good move in the game? I must admit I didn't have the time to look at it. But Huebner surely had the time and IF gxf6 would be a boomer he certainly wouldn't have given NxNf6 and NxN in his analysis. Just IMO of course. But Huebner is allegedly only the best German player, ok, if we forget some who came from elsewhere after 1989. And he certainly would not oversee such a possibility that _you_ could find after an analysis with FRITZ. Ok so far or do you want to claim some higher status, higher than Huebner? :) > >Peter
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.