Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:34:10 08/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2004 at 11:44:53, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >On August 07, 2004 at 10:29:57, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 07, 2004 at 10:21:27, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >> >>>On August 07, 2004 at 09:47:23, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 07, 2004 at 08:51:51, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >>>> >>>>>[D]3r2rk/3n1pp1/2p1b2p/3q3P/pp1PNQ2/2P2P2/PP6/KB4RR w - - 0 29 >>>>> >>>>>In this speedchessgame in round two of the fide-wcc 2004 the IM Neelotpal >>>>>(2457)found with 29.Rg1-g6 !! with the thread to sacrifice the rook on h6 the >>>>>strongest move to show that white is not(!) worse in this position. >>>>> >>>>>I bet that every computer of the world wouldn´t have found this in a compareable >>>>>time. >>>>> >>>>>So this is a lesson in tactics where computers can learn form human players. >>>>> >>>>>Do you agree? >>>>> >>>>>TL >>>> >>>> >>>>No >>>> >>>>I suspect that the human gambled about 29.Rg6 without checking all the >>>>possibilities with the idea that if he cannot find a defence for black by some >>>>selective lines that he analyzed then the opponent will probably also not find >>>>it even if the sacrifice is not correct. >>> >>>It is easy to say i suspect that someone can´t calculate this variation because >>>nobody can look in a human brain. I don´t like this style of thinking because it >>>has something like i can´t do it so everybody can´t do it. And that is nonsense. >>>A player with a ELO of 2457 can calculate things much better than a >>>nonprofessional player. That´s the way it is, and every strong player will agree >>>with this. >> >>I did not claim that it is wrong that 2457 player can calculate things better >>than me but it does not mean that I cannot have an opinion that something is >>impossible to calculate for humans because the number of lines to prove it with >>a computer is too high. >> >>It does not mean that the decision of the human to sacrifice was wrong decision. >> >>Chess is a practical game and decision to sacrifice for the reason: >>"if I can not see defence for the opponent then there is a good chance can be >>correct practical decision and tal is known to play sacrifices based on this >>reason and the fact that part of them were in theory wrong does not change the >>fact that it was good practical decision to play them. >> >>Uri > >Chess is also a scientific game and a lot of strong players didn´t make >sacrifieces with the motivation of Michael Tal.They calculate the lines till a >position which they know by expierence as a winning position. > >Thomas If this experience includes positions when the opponent has material advantage then I cannot call it tactics and if you want to calculate all lines until white win by mate or win material then there are too many lines to find that Rg6 is winning. There are a lot of moves that do not save black and I do not believe that humans can calculate all of them at tournament time control. I do not claim that the decision to sacrifice is practically wrong. Chess is a game with limited time and not playing a move because you are unable to calculate everything is not the best strategy. If you see an interesting sacrifice and you are unable to calculate everything but for every line that you have time to calculate for black you find a win for white then playing the line can be a good practical decision even if you expect the opponent to play the right moves. playing a move that you believe is 60% winning and 40% losing is better than playing a move that is 100% draw. 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.