Author: A. Steen
Date: 14:23:50 11/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
[Event "Man vs Machine II"]
[Site "Bilbao"]
[Date "2005.11.20"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Hydra"]
[Black "Kasimdzhanov, Rustam"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E92"]
[BlackElo "2670"]
[PlyCount "77"]
[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 Bf4 37. Bxf4 exf4 38. Rxf4 Rg3 39. Ne7 1-0
On November 23, 2005 at 03:53:25, Oreopoulos Kostas wrote:
>Yes the fen is wrong (just an old fen in the clipboard
Not "the fen" - YOUR FEN, as you provided as "proof".
Thank you for at last admitting a mistake. You overlooked admitting your five
_other_ distinct and separate mistakes I pointed out so far (not counting any I
find below, naturally), but this is indeed a fine start! :)
:: snip some pointless insults from you ::
>here is the correct FEN
>
>[D] 6rk/N2b3q/np1p1brn/2pPp2p/1PP1PpP1/P2Q3P/1R3NP1/3BBRK1 w - -
>
>and the analysis that clearly show that the position is not dead drawn
>white can play 28... Qh7
Sigh.....
Still, you seem not to understand that 28 ... Q-h7 is a move by black (the
player with dark-coloured men) and not by white (the other) as you _again_
insist (!), and again you repeat the clever posting of a FEN/diagram with the BQ
on h7 but start your subsequent sequence from that position with Q-h7, and the
diagram showing it is WTM but your sequence commencing with a black move. :)
Still, it is obvious what you mean. To remove further chances for your caissaic
dyslexia to waste even more of my time, I will (lower down) place in correct
form what you are saying. :)
> 29. Nb5 (not your silly Nc6)
Yet another incorrect attack and insult.
Kindly look here:
http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463196
You will see that the person - who was trying to show white had an advantage
after Kasimdzhanov's 26. .. Ra-g8! - who gave a sequence allegedly showing
advantage for white which ran:
27...Qh7 28.Nc6 [etc.]
was not ME but was your colleague here named "URI BLASS", who you must therefore
be calling stupid. He presented the sequence as demonstrating computer-proven
(LOL!) superiority for white. So, of course, I replied showing how 28. N-c6 led
to no such thing.
28. N-c6 was entirely the suggestion of URI BLASS and his computer. My earlier
analysis on this board had involved Nb5, which is a little better.
So, by insulting me for 28. N-c6, when in fact the move is one which has nothing
to do with me, I know nothing of Mr Blass - really shows your class and
research. :)
Are you going to apologise for your unjustified insult? Go on, surprise me and
the intelligent onlookers (there are some smart posters here, like Djordje) and
say "Sorry".
Of course, your rage and desire to crush and destroy me (if any, but it seems
evident in these outbursts) probably does little to enhance your judgmental
abilities. :)
> hg4 30 Ng4 Ng4 32 Bg4 Bg4 33 hg4 Rh6 34 Qf3! += at least
Haha, the move jumps from "30" straight to "32". So is this an error in
numbering sequence, or have you forgotten to copy something from your computer?
Who knows.
>The line i gave was what i saw in the first 2sec for the position and replied.
Last time, your after-the-event excuse for your blunderous sequence "Ne5 de5 Qe5
Qg7 Bc3" (Qg7 is a double or even triple question-mark move - easy to show that
white is winning if black is forced to play ridiculous moves an 1100-level
player would reject) was that you had spent just 15 seconds on it. :)
Now, I see you make your excuse in advance - and reduce your time to "2 sec".
You really have confidence in the analysis of your computer(s) or intuition? :)
To spend several minutes writing a post to support "2 sec" of analysis appears
strange to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, enough of that. Now here (ignoring your confusion above) is the position
you obviously want to consider-
[D]6rk/N2bq3/np1p1brn/2pPp2p/1PP1PpP1/P2Q3P/1R3NP1/3BBRK1 b - - 0 28
which did occur in the Hydra-Kasimdzhanov game, immediately after white's
capture of the g-pawn.
It is NOT one of the two positions which I said were absolute dead draws. They
arose from 27. .. Q-h7 (see the message
http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463196
where Mr Blass set this direction) as Kasimdzhanov played 27. .. g4 instead.
27. .. Q-h7 I had said is, in my opinion, probably very slightly better than the
move that K. played.
Further, the two positions I said were absolute dead draws (which I did in
http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219 ) cannot descend by
transposition of moves from the position above, as since you (making the case
for the white side) are specifying 29. N-b5, and Uri Blass had specified 28.
N-c6 and my demonstrated draws followed from Uri's line for white. One cannot
lead to the other, obviously.
So therefore WHATEVER follows is completely irrelevant to any case you are
trying to make that my analysis of those two positions (the ones specified as
being "dead drawn") was wrong.
To show my analysis of a position is wrong, you must start from that position,
or at least from a descendant of it. You cannot start from a position that no
conceivably sane move sequence can get to from the position I analysed! :)
I must assume, since you have boasted of your intelligence and chess powers,
that this is not just a further manifestation of a confused state, but is proof
absolute that you have therefore abandoned your very bold claim that "most of
the positions you say are dead drawn, are actually better for white." (made by
you in http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463426 , all archived by
me). The only positions I explicitly said are _dead_ drawn are the two which
are descendants of 28. N-c6. and the position if Kasimdzhanov had played the
correct move (34. .. B-f6 or an alternative) and not 34. .. B-g3??.
Explanation for the slower-witted, obviously not needed for Kostas who has
reminded us of his superb reasoning and chess powers ( :) ) : To get a "most"
out of 3 positions, that means at least 2 positions, which means given the 3
possibles, at least one of the "at least 2" must be one of the descendants of
28. N-c6.
Why therefore not apologise and simply retract that ridiculous assertion,
Kostas? You can't prove "most of the positions you say are dead drawn, are
actually better for white."
You can't prove even one of the 3 positions I say are dead drawn, are actually
better for white, but that's another matter.
OK, so back to-
[D]6rk/N2bq3/np1p1brn/2pPp2p/1PP1PpP1/P2Q3P/1R3NP1/3BBRK1 b - - 0 28
which I give again as your last mistake has caused too much vertical
displacement.
And your suggested optimal sequence demonstrating white's superiority FROM THAT
POSITION is:
28. .. Q-h7 29. N-b5 (not [Uri Blass's] "silly" (<< Kostas's description of the
move) Nc6) hxg 30 Nxg4 Nxg4 31 (correcting Kostas's faulty numbering) Bxg4 Bxg4
32 hxg4 R-h6 33 Q-f3! +=
Here is my response to the suggested Black moves.
28. .. Q-h7
Fine. While this is not what Kasimdzhanov played (28. .. B-h4) I am happy to go
along with this.
29. N-b5
(Not the other alternative which you dismissed as "silly" :) )
OK, so here is your position now :
[D]6rk/3b3q/np1p1brn/1NpPp2p/1PP1PpP1/P2Q3P/1R3NP1/3BBRK1 b - - 0 29
29. .. hxg
But here, already, you go wrong. :(
Of course I see that there is no immediate threat to the d6 pawn (and worse,
incursion of the BN). 30. Nxd6? Nxh3 31. Q-g7 and the nakedness of the WK
should be fatal, -+. But, there while there is no immediate threat, a N
invasion later may be incovenient. Prophylaxis.. why not stop it?
Also, the f-file may be opened up by force, and there won't be a R on g6 to
protect the B on f6 from the WR or maybe even the WQ which may have moved to the
f-file.
There is a third reason for my move as black, but I leave you to find the sting
in the tail when you put your computer(s) to work to beat me.
And finally, white's position is hard to improve, so a tempo does not mean so
much. While nothing at all like zugzwang, black is not here feeling any
pressure (we know your N-b5 is brilliant, of course, LOL!).
Therefore, I reject your black move of 29 .. hxg4, and instead in the last
diagrammed position I play
29. .. Bxe7.
(You do not get to play both as white and black, you know, in these entertaining
attempts to prove white has an advantage).
So, here is the position, resulting from your position, my acceptance of your
first black and first white move, and my correction of your second black move (I
choose 29. .. Bxe7)
[D]6rk/3bb2q/np1p2rn/1NpPp2p/1PP1PpP1/P2Q3P/1R3NP1/3BBRK1 w - - 0 30
****** So, it is your turn. WHAT IS YOUR MOVE (AS WHITE)?
You have claimed the predecessor position was "+=", and we are going to prove
you wrong (again).
And please save yourself the bother of providing the moves for black. Your
record here has not been very good, has it? (The Q-g7?? blunder, now the hxg
which I rejected).
It is really simple - you give your move as white, and I provide the move as
black. You do not get to play both sides, give black weak moves (probably they
don't look weak to you, I know) and then proclaim victory for white.
We will soon see how accurate is this "+=" you claim. :)
Advance Prediction: Kostas won't be able to demonstrate any advantage at all for
white. The position is even. Black's dynamic potential on the K-side rules
out anything and everything for white. Kostas will then claim he didn't mean
this position, or jump to some other position, or say he never thought about it
for long. Unfair of me? No way. He has already done this the last time
around!
So, Kostas, I wait for your move as white, to demonstrate the advantage you
claim.
:)
The rest of this post deals with your boasting.
>Ne5 was what i would play in a 1minute game. It is what my intuition says the
>position demands and not analysis. And guess what !!! i am correct. In that
>position Ne5 is the best move.
Thank you for boasting ("And guess what !!! i am correct.") that you found N-e5.
Let us check who found N-e5 first, OK?
In my post-
http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463219
about 3/4 of the way down the webpage, you will find I gave the position-
[D]6rk/3b3q/npNp4/2pPp3/1PP1Ppr1/P1Q5/5RP1/4BRK1 w - - 0 34
and wrote:
"In fact, white seems to have to sac his knight to get the draw"
(the sac being, obviously, N-e5).
So, I found it before you, and mentioned it one day before you even entered into
this matter. Your first post re the Kasimdzhanov game was in response to that
post.
btw, N-e5 is very elementary, so it is quaint how proud you are (you use THREE
exclamation marks above when describing your find of it) of finding it. :)
Also quaint you forgot to mention that 3 ply further down your "inspired"
sequence, the move you presented (Qg7) is best viewed as an attempted joke. :)
>For me you are a very low rated player.
Because you make all the mistakes - _ALL_ of them, I have made none, except for
wasting my time painstakingly pointing out each successive blunderation - I am a
"very low rated player".
Good "logic", Kostas! :)
btw, a little pointer. Such "logic" separates the "2250" class of player from
the master. The master is very receptive to learning from his betters,
preferably from heavy defeats, OTB and in analysis.
> Proof is at the stupid lines you say,
If any, not one such line (chessic or linguistic) has been identified by you (or
anyone else here, for that matter). :)
>and how you reply!
Yes, like a gentleman. Answering abuse and insult with a polite smile, and still
pointing out and correcting errors, which seem endless.
Infuriating, is it? It should not be.
The bad manners, ill-breeding, insolence etc. of some here does not intimidate
me at all.
>You may claim what every you want
My claims are specific and on objective matters. You have failed to point out a
specific claim and to show an error in that claim.
Of course you can find an "error" in a claim I never made, example above.
Is that an example of your confusion, or of something worse?
I neither know nor care, for you are rude out of all proportion to even your
claimed/boasted abilities.
I am only rude exceedingly rarely, and only when the other party has been
unjustly rude first - and even then, my abilities are out of all proportion to
any such rudeness.
>, but the position of Hydra-Kazim was never a dead drawn position
Had Kasimdzhanov not blundered with 34. .. B-g3??, it would have been dead
drawn, as perpetual check is the only possible outcome from that. Of course,
you don't want to discuss that position. I understand. :)
So, even in your final sentence, you manage to be wrong yet again. Immediately
before the 34. .. B-g3?? position, the game is dead drawn with reasonably
correct play on both sides. It is easy to demonstrate. But you have your hands
full already - remember, you have to suggest the move for white here:
[D]6rk/3bb2q/np1p2rn/1NpPp2p/1PP1PpP1/P2Q3P/1R3NP1/3BBRK1 w - - 0 30
which position you claim is a clear advantage for white.
Good luck! :)
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.