Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:17:12 05/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2003 at 18:50:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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? :) The level of Heubner is irrelevant for this discussion. If g3 is good for white and Heubner did not give an analysis to convince Peter berger than Heubner did a bad analysis. Analysis is to help people to uunderstand and giving the right move is not enough to say that the analysis is a good analysis. I did not analyze the position that is discussed to give an opinion about the position so I give no opinion in this post about the question if g3 is winning. Uri
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.