|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 233 OF 235 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-31-10
 | | WinKing: <<< kutztown46: Here is my resolution on the Fritz analysis I posted yesterday regarding black's 17th move. Fritz 10 at 22-ply rated 17...Qxg5 nearly a pawn better than 17...Rg8, which is the move we played. After 17...Qxg5, the following moves are likely: 18. f3 Nh2 19. Rxh2 Qg3+ 20. Qxg3 Bxg3+ 21. Rf2. After an overnight run, Fritz finally sees the light, as follows: Analysis by Fritz 10 (23/24 ply):
1. ² (0.30): 21...h5 22.b3 h4 23.Ba3+ Kg7 24.Ne4 Bxf2+ 25.Kxf2 Rh6 26.Bd6 h3 27.Be5+ Kf8 28.Bf4 Rg6 29.Rc1 Be6 30.Nc5 Nd5 Even though black is soon to be up the exchange for a pawn, white looks better on the strength of its central pawn chain. The key move after 21...h5 is 22. b3! which took a long time for Fritz to see. <WinKing> had examined this position on about page 150. My conclusions:
1) 17...Qxg5 is not an improvement over 17...Rg8.
2) Fritz sucks. > >>
********** <capafan>'s response ********** << capafan: <kutz>The issue with the computer analysis and the 17...Rg8 vs. 17...Qxg5 issue wrests with 22.Qxb7 that appears later in the 17...Rg8 line and is improperly evaluated by our silicon friend. A lesson for later World Games as this would have hurt us <Black> if we had been able to blunder-check with computers and did not trust our instincts. >> **********
I was curious so I did a run on both <17...Rg8> & <17...Qxg5+>. Your Fritz did eventually get it right <kutz>. I wouldn't say it 'sucks'.
The line you came up with at 23/24 ply almost matches Rybka. Your right about 22.b3! being the key move. That allows white to develop the bishop on c1 freely to a3 & obtain a good game even though they give up the exchange for a pawn. We had to be constantly on guard against this move in many lines as I recall. That was a good reason to stay away from <17...Qxg5>. <capafan> you are right about 22.Qxb7 being improperly evaluated in the <17...Rg8> line. Rybka sees it as even at d=20 but black has the better chances in this line IMHO. A deeper run would probably be needed to see how good it really is. White may have some drawing opportunities but it is not clear. ***
Rybka 3
<17...Rg8>
[+0.00] d=20 18.f3 Rxg5 19.fxg4 Rxg4 20.Qf3 Rg6 21.Bd3 Bg4 22.Qxb7 Rf6 (line clipped-same as below) [+0.00] d=19 18.f3 Rxg5 19.fxg4 Rxg4 20.Qf3 Rg6 21.Bd3 Bg4 22.Qxb7 Rf6 23.Be2 Bd7 24.Qg2 Rg6 25.Qf1 Rf6 26.Qg2 Rg6 27.Qf1 Rf6 28.Qg2 Rg6 29.Qf1 Rf6 30.Qg2 Rg6 31.Qf1 Rf6 32.Qg2 Rg6 33.Qf1 [+0.23] d=18 18.f3 Nh2 19.Rxh2 Rxg5 20.Qh1 Bg3 21.Ke2 Bxh2 22.Qxh2 Rg6 23.e4 Kg7 24.d5 Bd7 25.Be3 Qe7 26.Bd4 Kg8 27.Qe5 Qxe5 28.Bxe5 Nc4 29.Bd4 Nxb2 30.Kf2 ***
Rybka 3
<17...Qxg5>
[+0.12] d=20 18.f3 Nh2 19.Rxh2 Qg3 20.Qxg3 Bxg3 21.Rf2 h5 22.b3 h4 23.Ba3 Kg7 24.Ne4 Bxf2 25.Kxf2 h3 26.Bb5 Rh6 27.Rh1 Nd5 28.Ng3 Nc7 29.Bc4 b5 30.axb5 Rb8 31.b6 Rbxb6 32.d5 Nb5 |
 |
| Jul-31-10 | | ronpaz1: can anybody check the lines after 21.Bd3 Bg4 22.(not Qxb7)?. I remember, for example, that Team White was checking 22.Qg2 Bf5 23.Qf1 Bxd3 24.Qxd3 and evaluate the position as even. |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | SamAtoms1980: Good game all, and a great job done by my teammates who did the work to see this through. Thank you all... |
|
Jul-31-10
 | | blue wave: No I didn't check this line.
9.Nb5 <Bb4+> 10.Bd2 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 O-O<capafan> yes it does seems equal. My engine seems to like 11.Nxd2 0-0 12.Rg1 a6 13.Nc3 And seems == |
|
Jul-31-10
 | | kutztown46: <WinKing>
I am reading through all the kibitzing, focusing on the Team White comments. I am up to about page 140. At this point White is still brimming with optimism. It looks like White discussed the 17...Qxg5 lines earlier, more often, and in greater detail than we did. Black's 16th and 17th moves were important milestones in our game. Any engine that gets to 22-ply in a position and incorrectly rates a move as far better than others is an engine that IMHO cannot be trusted. |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | zanshin: <ronpaz1: can anybody check the lines after 21.Bd3 Bg4 22.(not Qxb7)?.> <ronpaz1> Fwiw, here's Rybka 4 on <21.Bd3 Bg4> 
click for larger view [+0.00] d=19 22.Qxb7 Rf6 23.Be2 Bxe2 24.Kxe2 Rb8 25.Qg2 Qc8 26.Kd1 Rg6 27.Qf3 Qc4 28.Rf1 Qb3+ 29.Ke2 Qc4+ 30.Kd1 Qb3+ 31.Ke2 Qc4+ 32.Kd1 Qb3+ 33.Ke2 Qc4+ 34.Kd1 Qb3+ 35.Ke2 Qc4+ 36.Kd1 Qb3+ 37.Ke2 (1:01:04) 64851kN |
|
Jul-31-10
 | | benjinathan: I miss the game. |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | ronpaz1: Thx <zanshin>. What is Rybka evaluation after 21.Bd3 Bg4 22.Qg2? |
|
| Jul-31-10 | | zanshin: <ronpaz1: Thx <zanshin>. What is Rybka evaluation after 21.Bd3 Bg4 22.Qg2?> <ronpaz1> After <21.Bd3 Bg4 22.Qg2>: 
click for larger view [-0.26] d=19 22...Bf5 23.Qc2 Bxd3 24.Qxd3 Bb4 25.e4 Qd6 26.e5 Qc6 27.Rf1 Rc8 28.Bd2 Kg8 29.Qf3 Qxf3 30.Rxf3 Nc4 31.O–O–O Rg2 32.Rff1 Nxb2 (1:08:01) 88838kN (Rybka 4) |
|
Jul-31-10
 | | capafan: <zanshin><22.Qxb7 Rf6 23.Be2 Bxe2> If you recall, this is the line Black had been analyzing until <TouchOfKnight>, <ToK>, suggested 23...Be6 which, admittedly, I did not totally understand until studying the line in great detail. At this time I had tacitly assumed Black would draw ("Oh, ye of little faith"). It is nice to see the computer engines have a similar difficulty. :) 23...Be6 (a key move IMHO) preserves the LSB for Black which later becomes a monster combined with Black's DSB. The weakness of White on the light squares is not so easily understood, especially considering the WQ's position on the long diagonal. Another instance of if we had used computers, we easily could have been potentially misled. |
|
Jul-31-10
| | capafan: <blue wave><8.cxd cxd <[9.Nb5 Ne4 10.Nxd6 Nxd6 11.Bd2 Nf6]> did you check...
9.Nb5 <Bb4+> 10.Bd2 Bxd2> <My engine seems to like 11.Nxd2 0-0 12.Rg1 a6 13.Nc3 > You are right 11.Nxd2 looks better for white; however, I believe 12...e5 may be a more active try for Black in the above line. The next few moves might go: 11.Nxd2 O-O 12.Rg1 <e5> 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Qc7 Nc6 
click for larger viewYour thoughts? I guess ultimately the issue is whether White can obtain adequate play from its g4 foray or whether Black can complete development and turn the g4 move into a weakness in the endgame. |
|
Jul-31-10
| | blue wave: <capafan> yes I think 12...e5 is a very good move. In fact one of the reasons for playing 8.cxd is to try to avoid a potential e5 by black. So I suppose if black really want to play e5, white can't avoid it. On a different note, the above computer analysis is interesting on the <21.Bd3 Bg4 22.Qg2>: It makes you wonder if white could have played the 22.Qxb7 and then instead of retreating to 23.Qe4 perhaps 23.Qg2 was a possiblity?! I'm without a board or computer at work, but why not? |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | ronpaz1: <<zanshin> [-0.26] d=19 22...Bf5 23.Qc2 Bxd3 24.Qxd3 Bb4 25.e4 ...> Thx again!
25.Bd2 look for me more solid then e4. how Rybeka evaluate it? |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | zanshin: <Another instance of if we had used computers, we easily could have been potentially misled.> Well, these are not deep runs <capa>. I am doing hour-long analyses on a laptop, as opposed to 3 or 4 day runs on a quad. I suppose I could try for deeper ply runs, but there's really no arguing with the main point of your post: engines cannot plan. |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | zanshin: <25.Bd2 look for me more solid then e4. how Rybeka evaluate it?> <ronpaz1> After <21. Bd3 Bg4 22. Qg2 Bf5 23. Qc2 Bxd3 24. Qxd3 Bb4 25. Bd2> 
click for larger view [-0.67] d=18 25...Rc8 26.e4 Nc4 27.Bxh6+ Rxh6 28.Rxh6 Nxb2 29.Qh3 Bxc3+ 30.Ke2 Bxd4 31.Rh8+ Bxh8 32.Qxh8+ Ke7 33.Qe5+ Kd7 34.Qxb2 (0:44:58) 76018kN (Rybka 4) |
|
Aug-01-10
| | capafan: <zanshin>My intent was not to question the analysis. I understand your analyses are relatively low ply to make more of a general point...my point is also very general. Often simply letting a computer crank without **tweaking** (adding the human element capable of planning) does not provide a complete answer. The moves Black was able to arrive at using substantial **human elements**, in this case at least, IMHO would require much deeper and complex analysis than we have endeavored to perform as yet. |
|
| Aug-01-10 | | zanshin: We're cool <capa>. I agree with everything you said. Simply letting engines run on Infinite Analysis will not yield the best results. I also don't want to over-analyze this game. It has quirks and imperfections that give it character because it was played by humans. |
|
Aug-01-10
| | capafan: <zanshin><quirks and imperfections that give it character because it was played by humans.> ...and also hopefully, determination and some elegance for the same reason. |
|
Aug-01-10
| | blue wave: Just out of interest I put up an idea of <7.Rg1> during the game. I'd like to know how team black would have played against this move? It was thought at the time that <7...h5> made the move look silly. But I'm not so sure. Maybe <8.h3> is a suitable follow up in preparation for <9.g4>. I still think this could make an interesting OTB move for its "shock" value. |
|
Aug-01-10
| | kutztown46: I have now read up to page 165 in the kibitzing. I think it would be fascinating no matter how the game turned out. So far, this is the best quote I have seen (from page 157): <DanLanglois: Say that yes, for the sake of argument, it is a recipe for disaster in correspondence chess, what do you want, prune juice?> |
|
Aug-01-10
 | | OhioChessFan: I'm up to page 105. The highlight so far has been Hesam suggesting Team White not waste their time analyzing one of Black's moves. He was routinely ignored, White spent many pages analyzing our presumed move,and Hesam turned out to be prescient when the Black move was not what White expected. |
|
Aug-02-10
| | capafan: <blue wave><Just out of interest I put up an idea of <7.Rg1> during the game. I'd like to know how team black would have played against this move?> Since no one else has responded, I will suggest:
7.Rg1 dxc4
8.Bxc4 e5
[Actually this allows Black to play e5 earlier than any other line.] 9.Bd2 O-O
10.O-O-O exd4
11.exd4 Nb6
12.Bd3 Nbd5
13.Nxd5 cxd5
click for larger view== You may have improvements for white but I cannot see where white takes advantage of 7.Rg1 |
|
Aug-02-10
| | blue wave: I must say I'm impressed with <Touch of Knight> analysis skills. Very sharp and accurate. <capafan> thanks for your reply. Will have a look later on when not at work. |
|
Aug-02-10
| | OhioChessFan: <WinKing: My lines never stand up to scrutiny but you know what? Your line may be something that can be worked on by the team & made workable. A 'diamond in the rough' as they say. I'm sure your not the only one out there on our team that thinks this way. Teammates don't be afraid to put your ideas in this forum. There is no wrong when we are discussing & assessing lines.> This is really the crux of team games. I am with <benji> in that I think I have good ideas, but worry I'm posting a 3 ply blunder. I've done it. I've typoed moves that are not what I meant to post. I've forgotten to reset pieces when analyzing. I think those last 2 anyway, happen to everyone. But if I get gunshy I may not post a good idea someone else can work with, refine, blundercheck and extend, etc. It's painful to not have an engine check your work, but a good team can work through it. |
|
Aug-02-10
| | benjinathan: I agree with <OCF>. It requires a team with patience. And there is a responsibility on guys like me, a responsibility I did not always live up to, to be prepared to do the work and not just ask questions hoping for an easy answer. That combination of patience and responsibility is good for a team. Having really good players hepld too. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 233 OF 235 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
WARNING ABOUT COMPUTER USE:
The use of chess playing computers is strictly prohibited during this game. You may not
post computer analysis or evaluations to the Kibitzer's Corner, or
consult chess playing computer software, including endgame tablebases, to help you decide on a move.
Anybody violating this rule will be suspended from the game.
Chess databases (such as chessgames.com) and reference materials are permitted.
Thank you for preserving the integrity of this contest.
