|Mar-23-04|| ||ughaibu: These two only played two short draws against each other throughout their careers, in consequence the number of decisive games was greater than the number of draws. That this is the case for such strong players makes the assertion that a draw is the natural result sound dubious. Nevertheless, some of the draws were very interesting. |
|Mar-23-04|| ||drukenknight: But using games between 2 players as some sort of empirical proof of the nature of chess is dubious. To prove chess is, in theory, a draw, you have to look at the other possibilities: its a win for white or a win for black. |
Then you have to reason logically from there...it has nothing to do w/ Geller/Korchnoi.
|Mar-23-04|| ||ughaibu: I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm disputing something. Before I start collecting figures for various players can we agree on the length of a short draw? Naturally it depends on the individual game but I dont initially want to play through every short draw to make an assessment of it's degree of fightingness, so, as a game is defined as a miniature if it's no longer than 25 moves I intend to take my figures from draws of at least 26 moves. I also dont see why it need be a win for a specific colour just because it's not a draw (I think Sneaky once posted an example of a game that's never drawn but the winner is unknown). |
|Mar-23-04|| ||drukenknight: there are only three possibilities, logically: a draw, white wins, or black wins.|
What the hell else is there? Just because you dont know the winner doesnt negate this. It still has to be either white wins or black wins. Agreed? What else? Red wins? blue wins?
|Mar-23-04|| ||ughaibu: Not at all, it could also be the 4th possibility, either black or white wins. |
|Mar-23-04|| ||drukenknight: you are playing semantic games. With that logic, I could argue a fifth possbility: "either white wins or black wins or a draw."|
And a sixth? Either white wins or a draw? And a seventh?
You are being ridiculous. "Either white wins or black wins" is merely restating possibility 2 and 3 as one. It is not fundamentally different than three possibilities already mentioned.
|Mar-23-04|| ||ughaibu: It's different for comparing figures and deciding which result is "natural". |
|Mar-24-04|| ||drukenknight: if you want to compile data or compare figures, that is fine. Dont argue it as a logical fourth possibility, because thats not logical. |
|Mar-24-04|| ||ughaibu: Why not? Doesn't your position rely on the assumption that there's always a best move? |
|Mar-24-04|| ||drukenknight: no. Is there a best first move? not in my opinion. Besides, if the game is supposed to end in a draw, why would there be a best move? There are probably multiple ways to accomplish that. |
|Jun-11-06|| ||ughaibu: There are also multiple ways for either side to win, if there isn't a best move, for every position, there is no determinant for the identity of the eventual winner.|
|May-13-11|| ||Sleeping kitten: I quite like 23. ♖c4!. Black cannot play 23... ♕xb6 24. ♖c8+ ♗f8 25. b3, so he recaptures only an exchange rather than a piece, and White keeps some advantage.|
|Feb-20-14|| ||zydeco: Beautiful queen sacrifice by Korchnoi. This game reminds me of Svidler-Grischuk, 2013 -- the side that sacrifices the queen has a large material advantage, but it's hard to coordinate all the pieces and hard to locate targets. |
Probably black should have played 21.....Ra7 winning two pieces for the rook and restoring material equality. Presumably he missed 23.Rc4!
A cute trick is 29.b3 Bxe3+!
White should be better in the final position except that his knight and light-squared bishop are doing nothing. Maybe he can keep playing with something like 38.Kf2 Qxb2 39.Bc3 Q moves 40.Bd4 and then Bf1 and Nc3 to get all the pieces working, but probably he didn't want to deal with the g and f pawns.