Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:14:26 05/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2003 at 09:17:12, Uri Blass wrote: >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. I don't know. At least he's actually the highest rated player who assisted my longtime theory that such show events with pre-paid money only leads to irregular games. It's public relations if you want. Huebner gave three examples for iredibly strange and weak play by Kasparov. Others gave the same for Kramnik in his Bahrain show against FRITZ. The class of huebner is already the message. > >If g3 is good for white and Heubner did not give an analysis to convince Peter >berger than Heubner did a bad analysis. Peter Berger is irrelevant for this discussion since he is nothing without his computer analyses. Or he is someone under pseudonym. But that hypothesis is improbable because then Peter would NOT have given this naive gxf6. But let me analyse what you said. If a medical doctor could not "convince" you, that you had some specific illness, you wouldn't take the medication? How do you examine if the doctor is right? How do you examine if Huebner is correct? With FRITZ? Peter Berger analysed with FRITZ. No wonder that FRITZ didn't tell him why gxf6 is worse than Nxf6. Did you ever see a computer program that knew such things? Even Kasparov failed to work with FRITZ in 1997. Uri, do you believe the numbers on the display? +.85? Did you ever play Gambits? Have fun! Another point. If I write a new book, a novel, I write it for myself. Not for Uri. If Uri doesn't understand my novel, then it's Uri's prob, not mine. Also. Analyses are never decisive. Just come into the circus and play a line against me, Uri! But unfortunately I am a GM, rather old, but I am still playing in several European leagues while you are just the operator of some computer progs. I am famous in my country, in special for my analyses. Huebner is a trademark of analysis so to speak. > >Analysis is to help people to uunderstand and giving the right move is not >enough to say that the analysis is a good analysis. If you are a kid you surely can't profit from such analyses, unless you are a future GM! See the circle? - Pachman is dead. There is no successor yet. Huebner is no pedagogic genius. He does all the analyses for his own fun. He expects a certain sum of money if he should train juveniles. BTW he already did! ChessBase reported it. And paid it. > >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. > The question is NOT if it's winning! The question is that this is the only reasonable continuation if you want to win... So by leaving this move aside you will draw without any doubt! Good decision for the sponsors and the computer team from Israel. Bad decision for chess. >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.