Author: Telmo C. Escobar
Date: 16:19:49 05/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2005 at 04:27:30, Uri Blass wrote: >[D]8/p2knpb1/1p4p1/1Ppp2P1/P3PP2/2PKB3/4B3/8 w - - 0 33 > >The following position is from my last game in the israeli league. > >I had 20 minutes on the clock against more than 30 minutes of my opponent and >after not seeing a way to win the game I played >33.Bg4+ and offered a draw. > >My opponent declined the draw and replied 33...Kc7 > >I continued 34.e5 Bf8 35.Bf3 Kd7 36.Bg4+ Kc7 37.Bf3 Kb8 38.Bg2 Kc7 and now I >claimed a draw because my 39 move force 3 time repetition. > >[D]5b2/p1k1np2/1p4p1/1PppP1P1/P4P2/2PKBB2/8/8 b - - 0 39 > >My opponent did not agree and claimed that there was no 3 time repetition. >He also claimed that he has the better position and he plans to win the game. > >He was forced to get a draw because of the repetition but when we analyzed the >game he claimed that the knight is better than the bishop and my bishop is >passive when his bishop can go to a3 after c4. > >I was surprised by this claim and I am sure that every computer have no problem >of misunderstanding that white is better. > >If I knew that my opponent thinks that he has the better position I would >continue without claiming a draw and I believe that in that case I had good >chances to win inspite of my evaluation that the position is objectively a draw. > >I thought that the reason that my opponent refused to draw is to try to win on >time and inspite of being sure that I can hold it I did not want to spend time >on lines like 39.Bf3 Kd7 40.Bg4+ Nf5 when again I did not see a way to win. > >My opponent thought to play 39...c4+ in case that I play 39.Bf3 without claiming >a draw and like the computer I think that it is bad. > >I could not prove a win for white after 39...c4+ but white can win material and >maybe also the game. > > > >Analyzing with shredder gives another idea to try to win the game without Bf3 > >39.a5 Kd7 40.a6 Bg7?(of course 40...Kc7 is better) when the sacrifice 41.Bxc5 is >probably winning > >I still could not find a win for white against correct defence and I am >interested to know if white can win. > >I give this position also to demonstrate that humans are not always superior >relative to computers in positional understanding and at least the human that I >played against him did not do tactical mistakes in the game(he has israeli >rating of 1990 that is equivalent to the same fide rating) but he totally >misunderstood the position. > >Uri It is right that some humans are usually superior to computers in positional understandings. But most humans usually are inferior, except at relatively rare positions (say, humans usually see fortresses or dead draws much faster). Many -probably most- humans are also prone to try to win games when the position is objectively not favorable. Your game is interesting. Black has the better pawn structure, and this could be a reason why your adversary alleged to stand better. You has two bishops, a reason to think you might be better. As it seems that any side would worsen his own position trying to force matters, a draw is the natural outcome. But I admit that, if I was playing this game, I'd trying to find a way to win, no matter what side I was. Instead, when I examine the position from outside, and from the point of view of White, I feel worse- yet I feel worse as well when I examine the position from a Black's point of view! This is because I tend to see difficulties (not opportunities). When playing, I'm prone to force the game and lost- because I tend to feel obliged to overcome difficulties. Telmo
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.