Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:13:35 05/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2003 at 11:26:13, Uri Blass wrote: >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. You begin to see the light, Uri! Huebner saw that problem in the two other positions too. That's all. But then he's a GM. > >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.