Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 17:49:59 04/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 1999 at 19:08:41, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On April 04, 1999 at 16:29:01, Adnan wrote: > >> >>I don't think I should go over again all these posts that were posts rgcc. Go to >>Deja News and search "Adnan Deep Blue" in rgcc. Let us know if you have >>something new to add. > >I don't read r.g.c.c. My experience has been that the signal-to-noise ration >there is way too low. That was a decision I made quite some time ago, which I >think you will understand (despite perhaps not agreeing with) if you have been >reading it for a few years. Until I hear that it is being moderated (either by >the contributers themselves, or officially), I don't plan to start reading it >again. > >If analysis has demonstrated a large advantage for Kasparov after a Bxh7 >sacrifice in game six, it shouldn't be difficult for you to summarize it. > >Dave Gomboc On further thought, your suggestion was a good one. It's easy enough to do a search for the relevant information without digging through all of the crud. So I read the thread, and by the way, some of the posts you made there would probably have been "moderated away" here (just so you know :). But to get to the point: 20.a3 Ba5 21.b4 Bc7 22.Bxh7 Kxh7 23.Ng5+ Kg8 24.Qh5 Qe8 (24...Ng6 25.cd Qxd5 26.Rf3 Rd7 27.Rc5 +-) 25. Rce1 looks better than Qh7+. My main line is 25...Nf5 26.Rxe6 fe 27.Qh7+ Kf8 28.Nxe6 Kf7 29.Nxd8 Qxd8 30.Qxf5 Kg8 31.h5 +-. I spent around fifteen minutes on this, so I would not be surprised if there is an improvement somewhere, but it looked good to me. But if 25.Qh7+ is good enough to win too, so be it. Perhaps it's even better, I didn't check. Second, this whole thing might be a case of what Bent Larsen calls "long variation, wrong variation"! I spent another fifteen minutes or so on 20.a3 Ba5 21.b4 Bc7 22.Bxh7 Kxh7 23.Ng5+ Kg6 (and if anyone out there thinks that my last move seems stupid, there is a new edition of "The Art of Attack in Chess" by Vukovic out, so feel free to check out the chapter on the Classic Bishop Sacrifice :-) 24.Qg4 f5 25.h5+ Kh6 26.Qh4 e5 27.Nf7+ Kh7 28.Nxd8 Qxd8 29.h6 Nd5 30.Qxd8 Bxd8 and I'd say Black even has a slight advantage. True, there are many potential places for White to improve. But seeing as I have been procrastinating from doing homework for a while, and because you are the one trying to prove that White has a crushing attack after 22.Bxh7+, I'll give you the opportunity to come up with improvements for White. Finally, even if it's turns out that it is true that White is winning after the bishop sac, that still doesn't make Nge7 a blunder. Black's position already was pretty sucky, and alternatives might lose with even less effort required of White. An aside: Were you aware that P. Jansen, one of the Deep Thought people, wrote a paper on speculative play? The idea was that if you saw that you were doing badly in a variation that the opponent might miss (because it is very deep), then play that line anyway, instead of choosing a move that is theoretically better, but that the opponent would be able to see the way to take advantage of. Of course, I don't know if this was implemented in Deep Blue or not. Dave Gomboc
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.