Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 22:17:11 01/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 2004 at 23:57:07, Brian Katz wrote: >On January 15, 2004 at 23:25:17, Chesster Fritz wrote: > >>On January 15, 2004 at 21:38:32, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2004 at 21:22:31, Brian Katz wrote: >>> >>>>On January 15, 2004 at 17:34:08, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 15, 2004 at 13:40:23, Brian Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 15, 2004 at 12:19:48, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 15, 2004 at 12:02:55, Brian Katz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Correction it is Speelman who found a forced win after 1..Kc7 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I accidently mentioned Michael Steen rather than Speelman. >>>>>>>>Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>>After 49...Kc7 50.Ba6 (or any other Bishop move) 50...Kd6= and if instead 50.Ka6 >>>>>>>Bg1=. Read what I wrote carefully and you will see that the draw is quite >>>>>>>trivial. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>BTW, there is no way White can force his way to the h6 pawn with his King as >>>>>>>I've indicated elsewhere in this thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>How about in this line? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>1...Kc7 2.Ba6 Be1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As I indicated the move Kd6 here is drawing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>3.c5 Bd2 4.Kc4 Kc6 5.Bb5+ Kc7 6.Kd5 Bb4 7c6 Kd8 8.Bf1 Kc7 >>>>>>9.Bg2 Bc3 10.Ke6 Bb4 11.Kf7 Be1 12.Kg6 Kd6 13.Kxh5 Bh4 14.Kg6 Kc7 15.Kf5 Kd6 >>>>>>16.Be4 Kc7 17.Kd6 Bf2 18.Kd5 Bg3 19.Kc5 Be1 20.Kb5 Bd2 21.h4 gxh4 22.Bg2 Bf4 >>>>>>(22...Kc8 23.Kb6 Bf4 24.Kxa5...) 23.Kxa5 h3 24.Be4 h2 25.Kb5 Be3 26.a5 Kd6 27.a6 >>>>>>Kc7 28.g5! Bd4 29.g6...and Black is busted. >>>>>> >>>>>>BUT perhaps you are right. >>>>>>Black allows the a-pawn to be captured then the only way white can make progress >>>>>>is to give back one of the Queenside pawns and that would be a forced DRAW. >>>>>> >>>>>>Great position for analysis!!! >>>>>> >>>>>>Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This is _not_ a great position for analysis. There is little need to be doing >>>>>much analysis at all. You need to pay attention to what I wrote >>>>>(http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?342545). Black has a fortress >>>>>position against which White cannot produce anything resembling progress. The >>>>>position is a stone cold draw. >>>> >>>>Of course this is a great position for analysis. Peter Svidler even erred in his >>>>assessment of this position. >>>>For others who are not familiar with fortresses or who are not rated that >>>>high....... >>>> This is wonderful position to look at. >>>>Who else feels as I do? >>>>Brian >>> >>> >>>Of course, the position is instructive. What I meant by "This is _not_ a great >>>position for analysis," I meant specifically that it was not a position for >>>calculating. If you are calculating more than a little bit, then you are >>>misunderstanding the position. The position is best solved by thinking >>>schematically with little calculation. >>> >>>The fact that so many titled players and even a quite strong player like Svidler >>>misunderstands this position is indicative that endgame technique is not nearly >>>as high as the layperson imagines it to be among the pros. Middle game play and >>>opening knowledge evidently has much greater practical value. >> >>That's a load of crap. Capablanca is turning in his grave. I know about what the old masters have written about the importance of endgame technique. I used to believe it myself. I'm an NM who likes the endgame very much and have studied it quite a bit. However, in my personal experience I have encountered many SMs, IMs and even GMs who lack knowledge about the endgame that I myself had taken for granted. Given that they are higher rated than me, I was forced to the conclusion that endgame technique is not so important as I had been led to believe. More important is the ability to calculate complex middlegame variations accurately and knowledge of opening theory. I calculate rather well for my level, but opening theory is my weakest part of my chess by far. It is the area of chess I very much despise. I would be quite happy if the chess world shifted to FRC. If you think about it, you would realize that chess programs are as successful as they are for very similar reasons as the pros are. Computers are very strong in the opening phase with their perfect and voluminous memory plus they calculate very well in complex middlegame positions. Despite being relatively weak in the endgame compared to GMs (except for 5, 4 & 3 man endings, which are rather rare, they are able to give even super GMs a bad time, because the first two stages of a game of chess, the opening and middlegame are simply much more important than the endgame. BTW, one of the results some have posted here at CCC is that programs playing with EGTBs do not perform significantly better overall than playing without them. EGTBs are just not that big a deal for overall playing strength. Surprising, but true. They are great for analyzing such endings, but they do not help often enough in games to be of much consequence. >> >>I could post positions, from ChessBase if you hadn't seen them and concluded >>they were draws, when in fact they are an exception to common theory. >> >>Many *Drawish* positions aren't! To solve them takes a great deal of analysis, >>and technique. > > >One also has to give credit to these players as nowadays the games are played in >one session rather than adjourning like in the past. Not enough time to study >the position to be play upon resumption as now the games are played in one >session. Lots of moves are missed this way. >Brian
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.