Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:26:13 05/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2003 at 10:14:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. I do not know It is easy to criticize after the game a decision to go for a draw and not for an unclear position. Computers are very strong in tactics and the decision of kasparov not to go to unclear position but to go for a draw is a decision that I understand. The main problem is the decision to go for a draw in the last game when kasparov said that he had a better position. 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.