Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 03:14:55 12/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2004 at 06:56:53, Uri Blass wrote:
>On December 22, 2004 at 05:34:53, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>
>>On December 21, 2004 at 15:27:20, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On December 21, 2004 at 15:22:54, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 21, 2004 at 15:00:26, William Free wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 21, 2004 at 14:12:03, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you talking about a 2500 FIDE old GMI, or the current top ten?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A. Ponti
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant just the average joe blow Grandmaster
>>>>
>>>>Fritz3 on p90 got the IM norm in 1994 at tournament time control and drew with
>>>>some GM's that did not do special preparation against it.
>>>>
>>>>I believe that my stupid movei on p200 is better than Fritz3 on p90 both because
>>>>of better hardware and better software.
>>>>
>>>>I also believe that joe blow Grandmaster does not do special preperation against
>>>>computers so movei can probably beat jow blow at tournament time control on p200
>>
>>Nonsense, first of all it is not a matter of preparation,not a matter of ELO but
>>rather a matter of style.
>>Your Movei on a P200 gets easily outplayed by an average GM provided he is an
>>experienced positional chess player.
>
>It means that it is depended on the style of the GM.
>
>>
>>>>with no problem and movei is not close to be a top program and I guess that it
>>>>is 200-300 elo weaker than shredder8.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>It can be wrong only if GM's improved signficantly since 1994.
>>
>>Certainly they improved significantly
>>
>>Michael
>
>It may be interesting if there is some analysis that proves it like analysis
>that 2500 GM's do less tactical mistakes relative to 2500 GM's of 1994
>
>When I look at games of Emil Sutovsky from the olympiad with movei I get the
>impression that GM's are often weak in tactics(both sutovsky and his opponents).
>
>I give one game with examples of tactical mistake that were detected by movei
>based on short search(maybe there was a case when it did not see deep enough but
>I think that in most cases it is the GM's who do not see deep enough.
>
>
>[Event "Calvia ol (Men)"]
>[Site "Mallorca (Spain)"]
>[Date "2004.10.29"]
>[Round "14.5"]
>[White "Bruzon, Lazaro"]
>[Black "Sutovsky, Emil"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "D94"]
>[WhiteElo "2637"]
>[BlackElo "2697"]
>[PlyCount "123"]
>[EventDate "2004.10.15"]
>
>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. e3 O-O 6. b4 b6 7. Ba3 a6 8. Rc1 Bb7
>9. Qb3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Bxf3 11. gxf3 Nbd7 12. O-O b5 13. Be2 Nb6 14. Rfd1 Qd7 15.
>Bb2 Qh3 16. Nb1 Nc4 17. Nd2 Nxb2 18. Qxb2 Nd5 19. Bf1 Qd7 20. Kh1 Qd6 21. Rc5
>e5 22. Qb3 {#} c6 23. dxe5 Qxe5 24. Rxc6 Nc3 25. Rc1 Rad8 26. Rc2 Nd1 27. Ne4
>Kh8 28. Ng3 f5 29. f4 Qe7 30. Rc7 Rd7 31. Rxd7 Qxd7 32. Bg2 Rd8 33. Bf3 h5 34.
>Kg2 Qd3 35. Qxd3 Rxd3 36. Rc6 Kh7 37. Bxd1 Rxd1 38. Rxa6 Rb1 39. a3 Rb3 40. Ra5
>Bb2 41. Rxb5 Bxa3 42. Rb7+ Kh6 43. b5 Rb2 44. Kf3 Bb4 45. h4 Ba5 46. e4 Be1 47.
>exf5 Rxf2+ 48. Ke3 Rb2 49. fxg6 Rb3+ 50. Ke2 Bxg3 51. f5 Bc7 52. Kd1 Rd3+ 53.
>Kc2 Rd5 54. b6 Rb5 55. g7 Kxg7 56. bxc7 Rc5+ 57. Kd3 Kf6 58. Kd4 Rc1 59. Kd5
>Kxf5 60. Kd6 Kg4 61. Rb4+ Kg3 62. Kd7 1-0
>
>
>
>
>[D]3r1rk1/5pbp/p1R3p1/1p2q3/1P6/1Qn1PP2/P1RN1P1P/5B1K b - - 0 26
>
>Sutovsky played Nd1 when Rd6 is better.
Maybe, but not everyone likes to enter an endgame a pawn down.
>
>Bruzon played 28.Ng3 when 28.Rxa6 is better.
>[D]3r1r1k/5pbp/p1R3p1/1p2q3/1P2N3/1Q2PP2/P1R2P1P/3n1B1K w - - 0 28
I don´t agree, 28.Rxa6 is the dumb computer move which allows Qh5,f5,f4 with
counter attack.
After 28.Ng3 white has a strategical won position.
>
>Bruzon plays 30.Rc7 when 30.Kg1 is better.
>3r1r1k/4q1bp/p1R3p1/1p3p2/1P3P2/1Q2P1N1/P1R2P1P/3n1B1K w - - 0 30
I don't think 30.Kg1 is better.
>
>sutovsky played 34...Qd3 that seems to be a blunder when 34...Kh7 is better.
This isn't a blunder. 34...Kh7 35.a3 followed by Rc6 is clearly lost for black,
so he tried to get practical chances.
The refutation 34...Qd3 35.Rc8! Nc3 36.Be2! Qd2 37.Nf1! +- is not obvious for a
human opponent and maybe Bruzon was even in time trouble.
>
>[D]3r3k/3q2b1/p5p1/1p3p1p/1P3P2/1Q2PBN1/P1R2PKP/3n4 b - - 0 34
>
>stuvsky played Rb2 instead of Ra2
>[D]8/1R6/6pk/1P3P1p/5P1P/4K1N1/5r2/4b3 b - - 0 48
48...Ra2 makes only sense because after 48...Ra2 49.fxg6 Bxg3 50.f5
[D]8/1R6/6Pk/1P3P1p/7P/4K1b1/r7/8 b - - 0 50
black has 50...Ra7!? _however_ usually three pawns win against a bishop and this
position is no exception:
51.Rxa7 Bf2+ 52.Ke4 Bxa7 53.Kd5 +-
Michael
>
>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.