|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-07-20 | | WorstPlayerEver: Back to the game..
Excerpt from Fischer's comment (as it is addressed by chessgames): <And here Korchnoi thought for about a minute and a half and not seeing a defence to the double threat of 31...Bxe2 and 32...Qh4+ resigned.0-1> Corrected:
<And here Korchnoi thought for about a minute and a half and (not able to find a defence against the double threat of 32... Bxe2 and 32... Qh4+) resigned. 0-1> |
|
| Jan-07-20 | | WorstPlayerEver: PS
I think there was nothing wrong with Korchnoi's eyes; he just could not detect a defence and resigned. |
|
Jan-07-20
 | | beatgiant: <WorstPlayerEver>
Fischer was a native speaker of American English. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic...
"See: to perceive by the eye; to perceive or detect as if by sight; to be aware of; to imagine as a possibility; to form a mental picture of; to perceive the meaning or importance of; to come to know...." I think there is nothing wrong with your eyes, but maybe you didn't see the polysemy. |
|
| Jan-07-20 | | WorstPlayerEver: <beatgigant>
Not my point.
Anyone with the appropriate eyesight can perceive (see) the board and its chessmen. But detecting actual chess defences on that board is another story. Therefore I deliberately distinguished between 'seeing' and 'detecting' in my previous comment. Because in this case we are - obviously - speaking of two different things. Then again, speaking of perception.. my comment focused on the made mistake in the main comment on this game afaiac- in what is supposedly to be regarded as being Fischer's comment - as it is addressed to Fischer by chessgames dot com. That comment is wrong. Because it,s <32... Bxe2> and not <31... Bxe2> FYI In other words: did chessgames - or Fischer made that mistake...? Question, questions.. |
|
Jan-07-20
| | beatgiant: <WorstPlayerEver>
I see. |
|
| Jan-07-20 | | WorstPlayerEver: <beatgigant>
I am willing to compromise.
<And here Korchnoi thought for about a minute and a half and (not seeing a defence to the double threat of 32... Bxe2 and 32... Qh4+) resigned. 0-1> |
|
| Jan-07-20 | | RandomVisitor: <AylerKupp>Yes, LC0 is a curiosity worth investigating. It would be a sad day if/when randomly generated code becomes the best computer chess program... |
|
| Jan-08-20 | | RandomVisitor: After 24.Be1, 24...Nh4 and 25...Nxg2 are playable
click for larger viewStockfish_19121008_x64_modern:
<66/115 77:27:51 -0.72 24...Nh4 25.Rd3 Nxg2> 26.Kxg2 Qe8 27.Nd2 Qg6+ 28.Kf2 Bxh3 29.Bf3 Bc8 30.Ke2 Rh2+ 31.Bf2 Ng4 32.Qg1 Rxf2+ 33.Ke1 Rxf3 34.Nxf3 Bf6 35.Rd2 Bd8 36.Ra2 Ne3 37.Qxg6+ hxg6 38.Rab2 Bc7 39.Nb5 Bxa5+ 40.Ke2 Nxc4 41.Ra2 Bg4 42.Kd3 Bxf3 43.Kxc4 Bb6 44.Nxd6 Rd8 45.Rf1 Bh5 46.Nb5 Rd7 47.Rg1 Kf7 48.Nc3 Rd8 49.Nd1 Bf3 50.Nc3 Kf6 51.Rf2 Bh5 52.Rfg2 Rb8 53.d6 Bd8 54.Rd2 Ke6 55.Nd5 a5 56.Kxc5 Rc8+ 57.Kb5 g5 58.d7 Rb8+ 59.Kc6 Bg6 60.Nc7+ Kf7 61.Nd5 Bxe4 62.Kd6 Bxd5 63.Kxd5 Kf6 64.Rh1 Be7 65.Rh7 Bb4 66.Ra2 g4 67.Ke4 Rd8 68.Rh6+ Kg5 |
|
| Jan-08-20 | | RandomVisitor: After 24...Nh8 25.Nd2! and 97 hours of thinking Stockfish is not impressed...
click for larger viewStockfish_19121008_x64_modern:
<73/104 97:00:51 0.00 25.Nd2 Rg6 26.Rd3 Nf7> 27.a6 h6 28.Qa4 Bf8 29.Nd1 Ng5 30.Nf2 Bd7 31.Qa3 Rg7 32.Rdb3 Qe8 33.Rb7 h5 34.R1b3 Qg6 35.Bf1 Re7 36.Rb1 Ree8 37.Be2 Bc8 38.h4 Ngh7 39.Rc7 Ng4 40.Nxg4 hxg4 41.Qa4 f3 42.Bf1 Bh6 43.Qc6 Bxa6 44.Qxa6 Be3+ 45.Bf2 Qh6 46.Bxe3 Qxe3+ 47.Kh1 Qf2 48.g3 Qxg3 49.Qxd6 Qxh4+ 50.Kg1 Nf6 51.Rb3 Qg3+ 52.Kh1 Qf4 53.Rbb7 Qh6+ 54.Kg1 Qe3+ 55.Kh1 |
|
| Jan-08-20 | | diceman: <RandomVisitor:
and 97 hours of thinking Stockfish is not impressed...> Stockfish would have flagged 96 hours and 55 minutes ago! :) |
|
| Jan-08-20 | | RandomVisitor: <diceman>Yes, this was after all a blitz game. But how often can you say that you have constructed analysis better than Fischer could? Or in reverse, Fischer could compete, on a few seconds of thought, with a modern computer working for 97 hours. |
|
| Jan-11-20 | | RandomVisitor: A final look after 24.Be1, the machine prefers 24...Nh4 to Fischer's 24...Nh8
click for larger viewStockfish_19121008_x64_modern:
<69/100 164:45:35 -0.52 24...Nh4 25.Rd3 Nxg2 26.Kxg2 Qe8 27.Nd2 Qg6+ 28.Kf2 Bxh3> 29.Bf3 Bc8 30.Ke2 Rh2+ 31.Bf2 Ng4 32.Qg1 Rxf2+ 33.Ke1 Rxf3 34.Nxf3 Bf6 35.Rd2 Bd8 36.Ra2 Ne3 37.Qxg6+ hxg6 38.Rab2 Bc7 39.Nb5 Bxa5+ 40.Ke2 Nxc4 41.Ra2 Bg4 42.Kd3 Bxf3 43.Kxc4 Bb6 44.Nxd6 Rd8 45.Rf1 Bh5 46.Nb5 Rd7 47.Rh2 Kg7 48.Nc3 Kf6 49.Na4 Rb7 50.Rb1 Bf3 51.Nc3 Rf7 52.Rf1 Bg4 53.Rg1 Bh5 54.Nb5 Rh7 55.Ra1 g5 56.Nxa7 g4 57.Ra6 g3 58.Rxb6+ Kg5 59.Ra2 f3 60.Rb1 Kf4 61.Kxc5 f2 62.Nc6 Bf3 63.Rf1 Bxe4 64.Rfa1 Rb7 65.Ra6 |
|
Jan-21-20
 | | AylerKupp: <<RandomVisitor> It would be a sad day if/when randomly generated code becomes the best computer chess program...> Yes, as Einstein might have said: Caissa does not play dice with the universe. |
|
| Jan-21-20 | | Petrosianic: <Granny O Doul>: <the argument for counting it is that Panno did resign rather than forfeit),> If he'd made a move, I'd agree with that argument. Without a move, the game is unratable, and no different than a forfeit. Ratable or not, it is a victory, though, just as Reshevsky won that match with Fischer 7½-5½. The game played out of order, I would definitely count as part of the streak. |
|
| Jan-22-20 | | Petrosianic: Anyway, as I was saying before the Trolling break, I'd definitely count the game played out of order. If the streak is about consecutive number of wins, that means how many times in a row you actually sat down at the board and won the game. If part of what makes a streak impressive is how many hard games you play in a row, without rest games breaking up the load, then a game played in the wrong order would add to that tension. If you played Round 6, 7, 1, and 8 in that order, and won them all, then you've won 4 in a row, even though it doesn't look that way in the crosstable. |
|
| Jan-22-20 | | Petrosianic: Of course, for that reason, a 5 game winning streak in one event is more impressive than a 5 game streak spread out over two events. |
|
| Jan-25-20 | | yskid: Hi,
Is anyone up to date with current status of Mar-Del-Plata variation in 9.b4 and 9. Ne1 line? |
|
| Jul-08-20 | | RandomVisitor: Lc0 does not think much of Fischer's chances after 24...Nh8. As mentioned earlier, 25.Nd2 keeps things even:
click for larger viewLc0_0.26.0_384x30-t60-4300.pb:
<27/71 44:10:44 68,097k 428 -0.02 25.Nd2 Nf7 26.Qa4> Bf8 27.Rd3 Bd7 28.Qa1 a6 29.Rb7 Rg6 30.Na4 Ng5 31.Nb6 Nxh3+ 32.Kf1 Bc8 33.Nxa8 Bxb7 34.Rxh3 Qxa8 35.Rb3 Bc8 36.Qb2 Bg4 37.Rb8 Qa7 38.Rb7 Qa8 39.Rb8 Qa7 40.Rb7 Qa8 41.Rb8 |
|
| Jul-08-20 | | RandomVisitor: <yskid><Is anyone up to date with current status of Mar-Del-Plata variation in 9.b4 and 9. Ne1 line?>Lc0 after 2 hours of 'thought' likes 9.b4:
click for larger viewLc0_0.26.0_384x30-t60-4300.pb:
<15/50 1:50:19 3,619k 546 +0.37 9.b4 a5 10.bxa5 Rxa5 11.a4 Ra8 12.Nd2> Ne8 13.Nb3 f5 14.f3 c5 15.dxc6 Nxc6 16.Be3 Be6 17.Qd2 Kh8 18.Rfd1 Qe7 19.a5 Qf7 20.Nd5 Nf6 21.Nxf6 Bxf6 22.Qxd6 Be7 23.Qc7 fxe4 24.fxe4 Bg5 25.Qb6 |
|
| Jul-08-20 | | Atking: <At this moment my hand hovered over White’s Pawn on e4, but at the last second I realized that 30...Nxe4 is answered by 31.Qxe4 and White wins.> This is Fischer. Nobody asked him to be such honest in the process of his though. Yet he did One shouldn't be surprise by the clarity of his play. Deep mind must be transparent. |
|
| Jul-09-20 | | RandomVisitor: After 8...Ne7, Lc0 after 21.5 hours still likes 9.b4:
click for larger viewLc0_0.26.0_384x30-t60-4300.pb:
<19/57 21:30:30 38,599k 498 +0.33 9.b4 a5 10.bxa5 Rxa5 11.a4 Ra8 12.Be3> Ng4 13.Bd2 b6 14.Ne1 Nf6 15.Nd3 Ne8 16.f3 f5 17.Nf2 Kh8 18.Nb5 Bd7 19.Qc1 fxe4 20.fxe4 Ng8 21.Ra3 h6 22.a5 bxa5 23.Rxa5 Rxa5 24.Bxa5 h5 25.c5 Bh6 26.Qc3 Bxb5 27.Bxb5 |
|
| Jul-11-20 | | RandomVisitor: Lc0 prefers the line above for black, rather than 9.b4 Nh5
click for larger viewLc0_0.26.0_384x30-t60-4300.pb:
<23/73 14:11:22 32,860k 643 +0.41 10.Re1 a5 11.bxa5 Rxa5 12.a4 f5> 13.exf5 Nxf5 14.Bg5 Nf6 15.Bd3 Nh6 16.Ne4 Nf7 17.Bh4 h6 18.h3 g5 19.Bg3 Nxe4 20.Bxe4 h5 21.Bc2 Qf6 22.Nd2 g4 23.Ne4 Qe7 24.h4 b6 25.f3 Nh6 26.Ra3 Bd7 27.Ng5 Bf6 28.Bf4 gxf3 29.Rxf3 Bg4 30.Bd2 Bxf3 31.gxf3 Bxg5 32.Bxg5 Qg7 33.Kh2 Kh8 34.Rg1 Raa8 35.Bd2 Qf6 36.Bg5 Qg7 37.Be3 Qf6 |
|
| Aug-31-20 | | Ulhumbrus: Suppose that White tries a Bronstein style piece sacrifice on c5 as in the game Korchnoi vs Nijboer, 1993 by 18 Ba3 and suppose that Fischer proceeds as he advises in the game by 18...h5. Then on 19 Nxc5 dxc5 20 Bxc5 the difference between this game and the game Korchnoi vs Nijboer, 1993 is that Black's king's rook is on g6 instead of on f8, which is to say that it is two moves ahead in development compared to the game Korchnoi vs Nijboer, 1993 |
|
May-04-21
 | | kingscrusher: A super-smooth Blitz crush - in severe contrast to his game vs Petrosian with the White pieces where Black had huge counterplay. Here Korchnoi didn't seem to have any counterplay and not helped as pointed out by Korchnoi himself with bxc5. One of the points I feel is that bxc5 should be played at some point but really with axb6 as a priority before this to open up things even more severely on the queenside. |
|
Sep-01-24
 | | Plaskett: https://james-plasketts-coincidence... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 28...Nxh3