Author: A. Steen
Date: 03:52:03 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 03:33:29, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On November 20, 2005 at 19:22:25, A. Steen wrote: >>Drexel,Michael wrote: >>>Nonsense, to delay would have been _very_ wise. >>That GM Kasimdzhanov lost is because he made an elementary blunder 8 moves >>later. Though he did not find the absolutely optimal line (IMO 27. .. Q-h7), >>even in the line he chose he could have drawn easily with 34. .. B-f6. As >>Uri's analysis with Fruitchess confirmed. :) 0.00. > >You completely miss the point, loudmouth. >The human had no reason to play for a draw in this game. Thanks for the repeated kindnesses. But the human had _every_ reason to play for a draw in this game. Super-GM Adams is now rated almost 25 world-ranks and almost 50 ELO points higher than K, and Hydra recently mauled Mickey 5.5 - 0.5 in a similarly time-controlled event. And it wasn't that Adams didn't have much financial incentive to do better. So K. would be right to seek a draw except from certain types of unusual or clearly won positions; he would be crazy not to do so. Hydra's abilities are to create tactical complications where there don't seem to be any possible (not cf. Aljechin), as happened when Adams too unsuccessfully tried to play somewhat anti-computer. Also K's ~400 ELO lead over you (corresponding to percentage expectancy of 92% by traditional means, maybe 89% by Sonas's proposal) makes me willing to first consider that RK is right and MD is wrong when you are saying opposite things. :) >He got an excellent position Sorry, I do not see that. I see a semi-closed position with statical possibilities of an obvious K-side break by B or a technically harder Q-side one by W, or both. To consider Black's position as excellent (in terms of winnability; drawability is not at issue) is IMO incorrect and unsupported. > and should have played for the win _without_ > taking any risks. In another thread I discovered you have written your prescription for Kasimdzhanov from 26. onwards... I reply to it (soon) there, in- http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463064 I hope for a lively but polite exchange, thanks, and we can settle this OTB instead of with epithets and adjectives. :) I'll give you plenty of chessical bonuses there. >It is well known that computers generally do not play this type of >positions well and Hydra is no exception. "It was well known that the earth was the centre of all of creation." >>>Black has nothing to fear on the Qeenside >> >>Even in the time of Philidor, the error of your analysis would have been >>obvious. :) > >What are you talking about?? I didn´t provide any analysis. If you asserted that black has nothing to fear on the Q-side, and you did this without any analysis, I do not know what to say. The position is not closed/locked on the Q-side! But this duel is better moved OTB, I am sure you agree. :) >>> and should strive for a quiet >>>manouvering game, not for an all-out suicidal attack against the Supercomputer. >> >>If you were correct that the resulting black attack is "suicidal", you would >>be correct in asserting I am speaking "nonsense". > >>But in this thread- >> >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 >> >>There, I prove that black's attack is anything but suicidal. > >You prove absolutely nothing. Now, this is ridiculous. I took the line chosen by Kasimdzhanov and showed that, contrary to the claims of many, the position was dead even and the danger as such was to white. It is all around- http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 Please make OBJECTIVE COMMENTS on SPECIFIC MOVES. Say (like I did with Uli's/Fruit's wrong analysis) - but here, if instead B plays this, white must fight to get the draw, or specifics like that. Long computer analyses with the first few moves in sequence plausible but then a bad choice of course is unacceptable, that was the undoing of Fruit's analysis. I grant you advance victory in all matters involved with insulting, deriding, making claims w/o evidence or proof and so on, so please - please SPECIFIC REBUTTAL to what I wrote in- http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 and which you again dismiss. You have called me a "loudmouth", an utterer of "nonsense" and even an "idiot", so I will be pleased to get something of substance if you know what I mean. > This wasn´t a correspondence game, If you think Kasimdzhanov embarked on Ka-g8 without seeing all (or at least all the important) things I showed in- http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 and much else, you greatly underestimate the level of chess at which super-GMs participate. My analysis took minutes only, and I am no K! No correspondence GM level logic is needed, just 40/2 super GM logic will suffice. >it was an OTB game and the human once again failed completely after he >unnecessarily opened the position. The human failed to draw solely and only because of a temporary delusion by K., allowing the enemy rook into the seventh and freedom for the enemy N that had been so carefully lured to a7. :) The delusion is not caused by the preceding move sequence. But I concede the opportunity for such a delusion would be less or nil in a semi-closed position. >Michael Rest stands, as I hope your hostility and evidenced contempt towards me will prompt you to provide some exciting chess moves in the other thread at- http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463064 Best, A.S. >>In fact, if at any stage white deviates from one tightrope sequence of moves, >>then white loses. >> >>I agree that it is less than unlikely that Hydra would deviate. >> >>And the result, a draw, which would be an excellent result for K. Why play on >>for hours as black when the stupid computer can be tricked into grabbing a pawn >>and leading to a forced draw? >> >>It is black who drives the game. All shown in- >> >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 >> >>>Michael >> >>Next time, please mind your tongue, thanks, and check before claiming someone >>speaks "nonsense". :) >> >>If you have refutations of my analysis in- >> >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 >> >>then please provide them. I won't hold my breath. >> >>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.