Author: Howard Exner
Date: 07:54:52 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 09:17:32, Soren Riis wrote: >On January 21, 1999 at 08:25:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 21, 1999 at 05:33:50, Prakash Das wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 1999 at 19:43:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 1999 at 15:31:40, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 20, 1999 at 11:44:29, Soren Riis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Kasparov just won against Topolov what must be one the most beutiful >>>>>>combinations in the history of chess. What is the engines oppinion? Did any of >>>>>>them find Rxd4!!! Is there any defence for black? After Ra7 and Bb7? >>>>>> >>>>>>Soren Riis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hi Soren, >>>>> >>>>>I just came back from Wijk aan Zee, witnessing the brilliant game won >>>>>by Kasparov. The following might be of interest to you: >>>>> >>>>>1. According to Kasparov 24. ... cxd4 was a mistake and Black should >>>>> have played 24. ... Kb6 instead. Maybe there is a computer program >>>>> that refrains from taking the rook, finding the move 24 ... Kb6? >>>>> It seems impossible to me one would play this! Furthermore Kasparov >>>>> told on Dutch Tv Text that after 24 ... cxd4? Black is lost and >>>>> everything is pretty much forced. >>>>> >>>>>2. After 24. ... cxd4 25. Re7+ Kb8 the game would have been finished >>>>> in a nice way as well: 26. Qxd4 Nd7 27. Bxd7 Bxd5 28. Qb6+ Ka8 >>>>> 29. Qxa6+ Kb8 30. Qb6+ Ka8 31. Bc6+ Bxc6 32. Nxc6 winning the queen >>>>> and remaining with a 2 pawns advantage. >>>>> >>>>>3. I shortly analysed the game at home with The King 2.54 and it played >>>>> the very interesting 30. ... Rhe8!? instead of 30. ... Qc4. (Note >>>>> that 30. ... Rd6? 31. Rb6!! wins brilliantly). The point is that >>>>> Black prepares ... Qe5 in answer to Kb2. So after 30. ... Rhe8!? >>>>> 31. Rb6 (what else?) Ra8 can be played. The King only finds 32. Be6!? >>>>> Rxe6 33. Rxe6 (again threatening Kb2 winning) Qc4! 34. Qxc4 bxc4 >>>>> 35. Rxf6 Kxa3, but this seems defensible for Black. >>>>> >>>>>So the big question is: Is there a win after 30. ... Rhe8!? >>>>> >>>>>Best regards, Jeroen Noomen >>>> >>>>I watched Kasparov (black) play a game yesterday morning, and in a simple >>>>endgame that was pretty well drawn, white kept finding ways to make mistakes, >>>>lose a pawn here, a pawn there, and pretty soon Kasparov won a probably dead >>>>drawn game. Due to opponent errors. Looks like the same thing happened here. >>>> >>>>Would be nice to see him try that against a computer, but we _know_ he won't, >>>>because there was a forced perpetual in one game where he could have played >>>>Bxh7+, but in his words "I wasn't sure I didn't miss something and didn't want >>>>to take a chance." Take chances against humans, _not_ against computers, as >>>>they shine a bright light on your analysis and expose _any_ small flaws that >>>>were overlooked. :) >>> >>> >>> Yes Bob, and why are you not so quick to point out the poor performance from >>>the others in this tournament? Shirov today wiggled out a draw against Timman >>>from a losing position, and this is a guy who is claiming to compete for a >>>world championship. And there are lots of such games so far. >>> >>> Kasparov showed today why he is best of them all. Many reasons but the most >>>important being his ability to adapt and prepare and outsmart opponents. >>> >>> Show some fairness. Try, okay? >> >>Perhaps I should point you to the title of this thread: "Brilliant win by >>Kasparov!!: What about 30. ... Rhe8!?" >> >>Where exactly do we start talking about Shirov, Topolov, etc? I simply pointed >>out that many of Kasparov's wins are the result of the human getting 'psyched' >>rather than by his playing a brilliant and irrefutable move. >> >>no fairness issue here at all. I believe if you look at my comments about >>prior GM games you will _always_ find that I have said that _every_ game I have >>ever gone over carefully has at least one blunder. So there was no intent to >>be 'unfair'. However, the 'brilliance' of Rxd4 is yet to be proved... > >Robert Hyatt seems to be losing his head here. Let me remind Mr. Hyatt that any >chess position either is lost, is a draw or a is win for white. Hyatt statement >that every game he has ever gone over carefully has at least one blunder >indicates that he does not include many of numerous wellknown drawing lines. >Many of these was first played as a game between GMs. If he only include game in >which white/black won his finding is hardly surprising, but is rather a simple >logical consequence of the nature of the game. > >Let me also remind him that the funny numbers your programs assign to chess >positions (like +0.15 or -0.06 etc.) are trying to achieve something very >similar to what Mr. Hyatt is so dismisive about - when it is done by Kasparov. >The funny numbers are used to create positions where it is more likely that the >opponent will make a mistake so the new position for example not is a draw but >is a win. Only mistakes from the opponent can make a draw into a win. If chess >computers only concern was to play correct chess they should only have 3 >evaluations: lost, draw, won. > >When Kasparow got his brilliant vision (as he have explained around move 19) the >position was very likely objectively a draw. So was the position when Kasparov >played 24: Rxd4!!! It seems that black could have hold the balance by two >different methods - Either 24:-,Kb6 or by playing 30...Rhe8 in the line they >followed in the game. > >Mr. Hyatt writes that the `brilliance' of Rxd4 is yet to be proved. The move was >played in a draw position, yet it was brilliant. It was brilliant from a >pragmatic perspective. But more importantly it was also brilliant from an >artistic point of view. And it was brilliant judged on the level of `ideas'. Mr. >Hyatt comment indicate that (though I have great respect for him as a >programmer) he has very little grasp or appreciation of chess. Kasparov idea is >the creation of a true genius. Many of the ideas are hidden in the side lines. > >Let me finally conclude that I am also genuinely impressed by the strong >programmes who found 24: Rxd4!! In my mind no program can play 24: Rxd4 without >having being constructed by a brilliant chess programmer. For those that are saying that a certain program plays Rxd4, I would request that the show the program's evaluation. I have my doubts that the programs are playing Gary's continuation. > >By the way: Did Crafty find 24:Rxd4? > >Soren Riis
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.