| May-22-04 | | ConLaMismaMano: 15 years ago games like this one were played in Linares... |
|
| May-22-04 | | skavoovie: There was a reason for that. 15 years ago there was no Fritz to refute opening speculation. All the work had to be done by oneself. |
|
| Dec-20-04 | | ughaibu: Are computers really a significant factor in opening fashion? Perhaps someone who owns one would be good enough to test the statement posted above by Skavoovie. |
|
| Dec-21-04 | | Lawrence: <ughaibu>, do you just want to know where the engine finds a stronger move? I would be happy to do the honours. |
|
| Dec-21-04 | | ughaibu: Lawrence: thanks for volunteering. If I understand Skavoovie's post, he believes that black's opening has been demonstrated, by a computer, to lose. I would be interested to see if that's true and from which point black's position was lost. Yoroshiku onegaishimasu. |
|
| Dec-21-04 | | Lawrence: <ughaibu>, nothing especially remarkable about that opening as far as <Junior 8> is concerned. It suggests that White would have been better off with 9.Kd1--eval +0.90--rather than the 9.Ke2-  0.17--that Beliavsky played. Later, White missed 21.Kc2. He had been about half a pawn up but 21.Be3 put him half a pawn down. 23.Rb5 was a really bad move. |
|
| Dec-21-04 | | ughaibu: Thanks. I suspect the apparently widely held view voiced by Skavoovie is unreasonable. First off, it's not clear to me that computers are particularly strong in the opening, in fact several posters have claimed the computers are over-reliant on their book. Second, a player can not get their computer to check out, beyond the level of known theory, all openings and even were they to do so, they would still need to hold all the resulting computer generated analysis in their memories. Unless Beliavsky was expecting Ivanchuk to employ this specific line there is no reason why he would have set his computer to investigate it, so, if computers are at all significant in the refutation of "speculative" opening play, that in itself is exactly the reason for employing such unusual and unexpected lines. |
|
| Dec-24-04 | | ughaibu: Von Schlepstein: your comments are encouraged. |
|
| Dec-24-04 | | Everett: <ughaibu> Well said, truly. What you say makes perfect sense. I do wonder though, if Ivanchuk investigated this line and saw what Junior 8 sees, then I wonder if he would attempt it in the first place. Perhaps it would have been left on the cutting room floor. Still, excellent post. |
|
| Nov-02-15 | | rainingpieces: Out of curiosity I looked at the position after the suggested move 9.Kd1 with a newer engine, Stockfish DD. At depth 36 it gives a move 9...c6 +0.56 3.83G (before that the evaluation jumps around a bit). 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.dxe5 Nxe4 8.Qg4 Bxf2 is quite a forcing line which starts from 5...Bb6. So this line still seems 'objectively' playable |
|
| Jan-31-16 | | cunctatorg: Well respected Chessgames: Linares 1989 was the tournament of the emergence of the great Vassily Ivanchuk as a Super-GrandMaster who could possibly pose a threat to the awesome Kasparov-Karpov pair! Therefore -and imho- you should give us, your readers, the complete cross-tables of the annual Linares Super-Tournaments from 1989 (or 1987?) until 2005 or so... Just 1992 or 1994 is not enough, Linares 1989 came to the chess world with a feeling of awe!! |
|
| Jan-31-16 | | Howard: Still remember Ivanchuk's making the cover of the now-defunct Inside Chess when he won this---and he was already in the world's top-10 by then. |
|
Kibitzing
