Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 10:45:49 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 06:52:03, A. Steen wrote: >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. >:) Both ratings are absolutely not comparable Kasim is a professional player, I am not. I play 10 games/year, he plays maybe 100/year. Such a player has certainly a much superior opening preparation. I can´t play promising opening systems like the Najdorf since they require a lot of homework. Certainly Kasim is clearly stronger OTB, but that doesn´t mean he understands every position better than I do. Also human ratings say nothing about the playing strength against Computer programs. A 2300 player can easily be better than a 2700 player there. > >>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. Any Anti-Computer expert will tell you: This was the ideal position against programs. Pablo easily would have drawn this position against Hydra. Michael >> 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.