< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Jun-01-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <everyone>
Now that I have a new machine - INTEL 3.4 GHz - I went over my initial analysis.
Fritz 8.0 (running under ChessBase), with 250 MB of RAM for the Hash-table, (a nice round number); ... we get the following line:
27.Ra1, Qf8; (prolly forced)
28.Rxa7, R3c7; 29.RxR/c7, Rxc7; 30.Re3, Bc6; 31.Rc3, Kh8; 32.Qf4, Rc8; 33.Qc1, Bb7. "~" After nearly 15 minutes, the computer sees a tiny, (miniscule); edge for White ... yet any Master worth his rating would tell you that this position is almost certainly drawn.
This completely vindicates everything I said earlier. Kh2! was the only PRACTICAL chance to win this game.
|Jun-01-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <reference last message>
In this line I gave an average of 5 minutes for each of White's moves, then I went and took a shower - - - hoping the computer might find something new ... if given enough time. |
When I got back to the computer, and the final position of 33...Bb7; the evaluations had gone DOWN significantly. (Fluctuating quite a bit, but averaging about + 15/100 of a Pawn.) Needles to say, you cannot win a chess game with this kind of microscopic edge. <Anyone who has ever played an opposite-colored Bishop ending will know that often two Pawns ahead does NOT guarantee a win. Here we can conclude a draw with a better than 99.99% probability.)
|Jun-01-04|| ||clocked: <AJ> TRY to be objective. As you originally stated, we are concerned with PRACTICAL chances! You cannot have it both ways. Proving that best play is a draw is against your own assertion! You have already shown that best play after Kh2(!<-!?) loses. So you can't in the same spirit dismiss the alternative. I have already given more than one line of "reasonable" play that shows white has a strong attack. This is what PRACTICAL chances mean.|
Most of us know that a BOOC endgame is a draw. So why do you insist in following your computer's recommendation to do so! Is the program your servant or master? The computer should suggest, not dictate. If you have looked at my sample lines you would see that the position offers certain thematic attacking possiblities...
Now let us look at your line, 33.Qc1?
Ok, how about 33.Bf6! (this shouldn't come as a shock!)
Does this win? Does black have better? That isn't the point. White DOES have PRACTICAL chances; and therefore, Ra1 is not (? or ?!) and Kh2 is not (!). Instead Ra1 is obvious and natural; and Kh2 is creative and interesting.
|Aug-17-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: This game won the CJA award for ...
"Best Web-Based Analysis."
|Aug-17-04|| ||clocked: Amazingly, as it was the ONLY entry. Maybe next year we can submit a random chessgames page as competition. |
|Aug-18-04|| ||AdrianP: <the CJA award> See my post on the previous page of kibitzing on this game in relation to the CJA... |
|Aug-22-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Reply>
Actually, about a dozen people wrote me e-mails, and I have gotten several letters as concern this page and CJA.
Probably was the most poignant was from a well-known author, who was going to submit his game. He told me after he saw my game, he wished me well ... and told me he was not even going to bother to submit his game to CJA!
Long BEFORE this game was submitted to CJA, at least 100 people have sent me an e-mail commenting on what a wonderful piece of analysis this is.
|Aug-22-04|| ||Calli: What? Clocked and I got an award for correcting 100 years of mistaken annotation. On behalf of the academy, I'd like to thank....|
BTW- "CJA" "AJ" Notice the similarity...
|Nov-08-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <Calli>
Chess Journalists of Americal is a real institution. Their awards are very prestigious. I did not start this organization, and other than being a paid member, I have almost no say-so in this group.
The national magazine (CHESS LIFE) carried and listed these awards.
Your inferences are completely false, mean-spirited and wrong ... and only show your complete ignorance!
|Nov-09-04|| ||Sneaky: AJ, I just read your analysis for this game (see http://www.angelfire.com/games4/lif...) and it's very good. |
|Nov-09-04|| ||Sneaky: Clocked, yes I have. Is there a specific contraversial move that you want me to weigh in on? |
|Nov-09-04|| ||Sneaky: Clocked I haven't analyzed this position as deeply as you, AJ, Lawrence, and others, so I will refrain from commenting until I study it a little deeper. I'll come back with my thoughts.|
But let me say this: the only thing "inane" in this discussion is not the idea of 27.Ra1 but all this nonsense about the analysis of various computer engines. Have we not forgotten Leko vs Kramnik, 2004 game 13 where ALL the computers (including 12-processor Hydra hooked into tablebase!) were convinced that Kramnik had a win when in fact it was drawn? And that was a fairly simple position that one would think a computer could manage, think how much harder it is for computers to evaluate a middlegame. The fact that Junior awards one move +0.86 pawns more than another is absolutely meaningless.
|Nov-09-04|| ||Sneaky: My gosh, I stayed up half the night analyzing this position from move 27 and I just realized I have my board set up wrong!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaah! |
|Nov-17-04|| ||offramp: <Sneaky: My gosh, I stayed up half the night analyzing this position from move 27 and I just realized I have my board set up wrong!! aaaaaaaaaaaaaah!> [Diagram?]? |
|Nov-17-04|| ||drukenknight: I went to echo what Sneaky said (how have you been old boy?). I think chess engines by design are limited when they give a numerical analysis, due to the way they think, and also the way we perceive, there is probably not absolute way to weigh a game that has a) material, b) positional and c) attacking issues going on all at the same time.|
A more mathematical explanation of this might call to mind the idea of non transitive sets, a simple of one goes like this: A beats b, B beats C, C beats A! (suprisingly).
Think of Frazier beating Ali, Foreman beating Frazier and Ali beating Foreman in the Thrilla in Manila.
ANother one is the voting paradox, i.e. Condorcet's theorem, that no voting system is perfect. Think of how you would rate desserts on the following basis: price, healthyness, taste.
You: "Waiter, how is the apple pie tonight?"
W: "Lovely, but the cherry tastes much better, sir"
You: "Really, then I'll have blueberry!"
To recreat that relationship (or any non transitive relationship) mathemtically requires a minimum of 3 variables.
A numerical summary, a ONE NUMBER summary, would necessarily fall short.
So it is with computer programs or anyone who tries to assign a game a single number.
There are many many positions in chess that will turn up big numbers for one side, but that end in draw. I will show you a cool one in a bit...
|Nov-17-04|| ||aw1988: <[Diagram?]?> LOL |
|Nov-17-04|| ||aw1988: Well timed, I will admit. :)
I'm still laughing.
|Nov-18-04|| ||offramp: I've just got my breath back meself! |
|Nov-26-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: It was only mildly funny. Mildly!
(Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby ... now THAT'S funny!!!)
|Dec-12-04|| ||Shadout Mapes: <LIFE Master AJ: It was only mildly funny. Mildly!
(Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby ... now THAT'S funny!!!)>|
I pray nightly that this is a joke.
|Dec-24-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: <sadout> Who are you kidding? |
|Dec-24-04|| ||TheSlid: Hi <LIFEMASTER AJ> Love the site!|
|Dec-30-04|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Interestingly enough - Benko took a look at this endgame in the December (2004) issue of 'Chess Life,' in his "Endgame Lab" column. |
|Oct-06-11|| ||I play the Fred: AJ Goldsby, August 2004:
<This game won the CJA award for ...
"Best Web-Based Analysis.">
AJ Goldsby, November 2004:
<Chess Journalists of Americal <sic> is a real institution. Their awards are very prestigious.>
Edward Winter, January 2004:
<If chess is 99% tactics, chess awards are 99% tack. The obsession with handing out tinsel crowns now seems unstaunchable, and it is time to give due recognition to those chess organizations which have made the greatest contribution to turning awards into a laughing-stock. The top three winners are announced here in reverse order.
Third prize goes to the Chess Journalists of America, a <dazzlingly undemanding body> with a track-record of dispensing hundreds of awards, <often to self-nominees with no realistic hope of an accolade from elsewhere>. The winners read like a Who’s Who of who deserves nothing. The one blot on the CJA’s copybook is that a few deserving chess writers have, just occasionally over the years, found their way onto the prize-list, and such inconsistency by the Association has dashed its chances of top honours in our contest here.>
|Aug-01-16|| ||posoo: DANG a lot of fokes on dis site say dat CHUSGUMS is NOT AS GOOD NOW as it used to be, but just LOOK at dese BUFONES arguing bak and forth over NOTHING.|
Only I can save chusgums.com.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·