Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:33:18 05/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2003 at 10:22:48, Peter Berger wrote: >On May 15, 2003 at 18:50:51, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Oh, excuse me... Do you really want to challenge Huebner? > >I didn't mean to challenge Huebner. I challenged his analysis. > >>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. > >Very convincing argument ;) > >>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? :) >> > >I got taken away because of my interest in this game, else I would certainly not >have started to discuss it with you. >IMHO analysis is a product of time, effort and ability. It is very likely that I >spent much more time and effort on analysis of the 16. g3 position than Huebner, >which might make up for some of my defiencies when it is about abilities, I doubt this. To give an example. The experience of a GM and former candidate for the Wch title like Huebner, who is famous for his detailed analysis, is described with the number of chunks he controls in his sleep. Some 15000 perhaps. Such experience you can never equalize with hours or days of analyses. Now if Huebner did NOT analyse your continuation it is because a) he knows that it is good for White or b) he didn't want to discuss it because it might have taken too much time (unpaid time). I would not even say that the fact that he didn't analyse your move meant anything at all. Perhaps he is waiting for contradicting ideas - who knows. I often saw this in his analyses for the CBM journals. He's always prepared for interesting findings. I think people have a false comprehension of GM analyses. I doubt that GM always want to give the absolute truth. What would that help? No opponent plays for the absolute truth. Certainly no computer. So the main part of analysis is what the opponent moves. If you think that corresponance chess is the key to real human chess or PC vs human chess, then you are wrong IMO. Simply because human chess is something else. A GM knows what you are intending and he will change the road if he sees that he's going into a certain automatism. I think that people often underestimate this typical strategy in chess when they argue with their computer analyses. To me it seems as if chess is only starting when theory or correaspondance analyses say unclear. Then it is ok for a GM, because no computer program is already GM! So by force the GM must win the advantage. >although I spent less time on the sideline we discussed. > >Shortly after the end of the game a friend of mine and me started to play it out >after 16. g3 - I took the black pieces first in a friendly game on ICC and lost >against the exact line given by Huebner. > >Then I challenged him to play a correspondence game and we have been analyzing >and playing this one since March, although he chose a different way to try and >win with 19. Nd1 this time because he found problems with the Huebner line. In >preparation we had a look at most analysis published by other masters, too, and >we found several mistakes in them. You gave a nice description of your activities. Not bad. But again. I see a principal difference between a chess genius and analysis workers when the question is about a real game of chess. Huebner made the argument that Kasparov did NOT play what he had played against any other opponent. g3 is the only winning chance. I think it is not so easy to ""prove" that White has a won position. But with the known weaknesses of a computer program this is a won position. The same with the two other positions. b5 is always a good move and Rxc3 is also a winning road. So three times in three games of six games Kasparov refused to play advantageous moves. Honestly I do not understand what you are trying to prove with your weeks of analyses. And I do not say that you simply wasted your time. Are you saying that Kasparov made the right decisions? But perhaps you are right. I for one wondered why Huebner, exactly Huebner, wrote about "Angst", since he is a) known for his own irritation in fights against Petrosian for instance and b) that Huebner is certainly NOT a good psychologist. On the contrary he was always very upset when Pfleger dared to analyse Huebners psyche when such blunders happened. The whole discussion between Huebner and his alter ego, the philosopher, is not so enlightening IMO. Therefore I concentrated on the variations. But perhaps Huebner just gave these lines to be able to rant about "Angst" facing the machines. Perhaps it's his own Angst. But Kramnik and Kasparov had no Angst but certainly a "bad conscience" after they digested so much money for some skittles. Perhaps Huebner wants another chance for himself. BTW he's the inventor of the draws in such show events. :) > >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.