Author: A. Steen
Date: 18:17:33 11/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2005 at 20:31:15, Graham Banks wrote: >On November 20, 2005 at 20:16:55, A. Steen wrote: > >>On November 20, 2005 at 19:58:54, Graham Banks wrote: >> >>>On November 20, 2005 at 19:47:12, A. Steen wrote: >>> >>>>On November 20, 2005 at 18:09:28, Thomas Logan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 20, 2005 at 17:55:28, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 20, 2005 at 15:41:30, A. Steen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 20, 2005 at 13:39:30, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 20, 2005 at 13:12:09, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[Event "II Man vs Machine, Bilbao"] >>>>>>>>>[Site "?"] >>>>>>>>>[Date "2005.11.20"] >>>>>>>>>[Round "?"] >>>>>>>>>[White "Hydra"] >>>>>>>>>[Black "Kasimyanov"] >>>>>>>>>[Result "*"] >>>>>>>>>[Annotator "Hob"] >>>>>>>>>[PlyCount "59"] >>>>>>>>>[EventDate "2005.??.??"] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 Na6 8. O-O >>>>>>>>>c6 9. d5 Ng4 10. Bg5 f6 11. Bh4 c5 12. Ne1 Nh6 13. a3 Bd7 14. Nd3 g5 15. Bg3 >>>>>>>>>Qe7 16. f3 f5 17. Bf2 f4 18. b4 b6 19. h3 Nf7 20. Rb1 h5 21. Rb2 Nh6 22. Be1 >>>>>>>>>Bf6 23. Nf2 Kh8 24. Qd3 Rg8 25. Nb5 Rg6 26. Bd1 Rag8 27. Nxa7 g4 28. fxg4 Bh4 >>>>>>>>>29. Nc6 Qg7 30. Bc3 * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>99,999% sure 1-0? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>JOuni >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I do not understand 26...Rag8 >>>>>>>>Even I could easily avoid that move against a computer because it is easy to see >>>>>>>>that it gives a pawn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[Event "II Man vs Machine, Bilbao"] >>>>>>>>[Site "?"] >>>>>>>>[Date "2005.11.20"] >>>>>>>>[Round "?"] >>>>>>>>[White "Hydra"] >>>>>>>>[Black "Kasimyanov"] >>>>>>>>[Result "*"] >>>>>>>>[Annotator "Hob"] >>>>>>>>[PlyCount "59"] >>>>>>>>[EventDate "2005.??.??"] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 Na6 8. O-O >>>>>>>>c6 9. d5 Ng4 10. Bg5 f6 11. Bh4 c5 12. Ne1 Nh6 13. a3 Bd7 14. Nd3 g5 15. Bg3 >>>>>>>>Qe7 16. f3 f5 17. Bf2 f4 18. b4 b6 19. h3 Nf7 20. Rb1 h5 21. Rb2 Nh6 22. Be1 >>>>>>>>Bf6 23. Nf2 Kh8 24. Qd3 Rg8 25. Nb5 Rg6 26. Bd1 Rag8 27. Nxa7 g4 28. fxg4 Bh4 >>>>>>>>29. Nc6 Qg7 30. Bc3 hxg4 31.Nxg4 Nxg4 32.Bxg4 Bxg4 33.Rxf4 Bh5 34.Qf1 Bg3 >>>>>>>>35.Rf7 Qh6 36.Bd2* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[D]r6k/p2bq3/np1p1brn/1NpPp1pp/1PP1Pp2/P2Q1P1P/1R3NP1/3BBRK1 b - - 0 26 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri, with great respect, in this position 26 .. Ra-g8 is a fine move and made at >>>>>>>the perfect time (in my opinion). White's pieces (especially the N on b5) are >>>>>>>not well-placed for a defence on the K-side, and white has not yet begun a pawn >>>>>>>push on the Q-side. To delay is not wise, white may regroup and bring his >>>>>>>misplaced N back. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Nonsense, to delay would have been _very_ wise. >>>>>>Black has nothing to fear on the Qeenside and should strive for a quiet >>>>>>manouvering game, not for an all-out suicidal attack against the Supercomputer. >>>>>> >>>>>>Michael >>>>> >>>>>If there is an exchange of minor pieces on g4 the pawn on a7 is protected and >>>>>rook on a8 is free to move without pawn sac >>>> >>>>Tom, there are two small errors in your understanding. Not that 26 .. g4 is an >>>>error, just that 26 .. Ra-g8 is superior. >>>> >>>>1. The pawn sac is irrelevant. There is either a mating attack or a perpetual on >>>>the K-side, what matters the QRP? The benefit of the so-called "sac" is to >>>>divert the WN to a7 where it is out of play, and gain a tempo while so doing >>>>(more tempi if the WN is attempted to be extricated). >>>> >>>>2. Black has a potentially dangerous weakness on d6 which is attacked by the WN >>>>when it is on b5. In some of the variations arising from a premature .. g4 >>>>attack, this counter-attack with the WN on d6 would turn the tide against black. >>>> The WN on a7 is safely out of play. :) >>>> >>>>26. .. Ra-g8 is more clean-cut than 26 .. g4. A draw, or if white deviates, a >>>>win for black. >>>> >>>>Oops. Black lost. But that is from a beginner's blunder on move 34. The correct >>>>move there made the draw certain even in the eyes of the computers. >>>> >>>>A study of- >>>> >>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 >>>> >>>>will show how mistaken various people's dismissals of the soundness of black's >>>>tactics are (up to the move 34 blunder, that is). It is white who is made to >>>>walk the tightrope, not black. It is white who has to sue for a draw, not >>>>black. >>>> >>>>Kasimdzhanov is an extremely brilliant super-GM. If you don't trust me, just >>>>trust him (except where he makes an obvious blunder at 34., that is. and falls >>>>off even though he is not on a tightrope...) >>>> >>>>>Tom >>>> >>>>Personally - and I am not referring to you here, Tom - I find it very amusing >>>>how obvious patzers (to whom I could probably give Q-odds OTB and win every >>>>game) have the boldness to dismiss the analysis of superior players as >>>>"nonsense" and also insultingly belittle a brilliancy (26. .. Ra-g8) by one of >>>>the world's greatest chess players, Four years ago, Kasimdzhanov topped 2700 in >>>>the past, ranking #11 in the world. >>>> >>>>Best, >>>> >>>>A.S. >>> >>> >>>A little modesty wouldn't go astray! >> >>Why? Does that help either master or patzer? >> >>>I think it's fair for people to question >>>analysis without being humiliated. >> >>Of course, I agree 100%. So, is this viewed as a fair way to question analysis: >> >>"NONSENSE, to delay would have been _very_ wise." >> >>(author: Drexel, Michael, in this thread, see above) >> >> ? I used the Capitals. >> >>He dismisses my analyses as "nonsense" - but with assertions unsupported by >>analysis, positions or even annofritzed palp. >> >>Much more importantly, he dismisses ex-WC Kasimdzhanov's judgment and play also >>as "nonsense". >> >>Both without prior provocation or interaction. >> >>Any humiliation he receives as a result is thus obviously begged for, and >>hopefully will instruct him in both chess and manners. :) >> >>>Having got that out of the way, thanks for your insight into the game. Very >>>interesting! >>> >>>Regards, Graham. >> >>No problems! :) Make sure you study- >> >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 >> >>where I show how cheap talk is. "Suicidal attack" indeed! Instead, 26. .. >>Ra-g8 is both a chessic and a anti-computer psychological brilliancy. >> >>A.S. > > > >A chess friend of mine in NZ, Ortvin Sarapu, won the NZ Championship on 20 >different occasions. He also represented NZ in the Interzonals where he had the >privilege to lock horns with Fischer. >What made Ortvin different from other top players in NZ was that he was always >happy to talk and socialise with the "patzers". He was not aloof and distant as >many of the top players tended to be. It was below their status to talk chess >with those inferior to themselves. >I think that the old maxim that people will respect those who respect them holds >true in most cases. >Not a sermon, just a reflection! (and certainly not intended to cause trouble!) Reflectively, how did Sarapu respond when a patzer told him, without any provided justification, that his analysis of a position was "Nonsense" and that a super-GM's move was "Nonsense"? Did he correct the patzer by way of clear examples on the chessboard? Or did he walk away with a smile? Or did he agree with the patzer, leaving him as ignorant as before? When you have reflected on the answer to this, you will have perhaps found why no really strong chess players participate here on www.talkchess.com (one or teo anonymice excepted), even though today surely all really strong chess players have some chess computer experience and many have a growing interest. I believe I have done no wrong. My response was proportionate to the offensive remark, and was objective, instructive and chessical. If GM Kasimdzhanov could be persuaded to come here, I would have left it in his capable hands instead to instruct. >I still appreciated your analysis of the game very much. Thank you for sharing >your expertise and I hope that you will continue to do so! > >Regards, Graham. Surely so! I have a thick skin. And of course I reserve every right for my analysis to, on occasion, be "Nonsense". This time (by sheer chance, of course - is that enough false modesty for now?) it was not. :) Best, A.S.
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.