< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Aug-17-11|| ||qqdos: <DrMAL & SWT> thanx. The voters chose this game above Kasparov and I think it will continue to delight them for many years to come - (all-time) Immortal or Evergreen? I'll take either description! Chucky was busting a gut to win this one but met his match. Incidentally on the question of unsoundness, have a look at posts in 2006-7 by <maxi & offramp>.|
|Aug-17-11|| ||DrMAL: <qqdos> Ole maxi managed to troll his way onto my IGNORE list some time ago. At least <offramp> is trying and not being rude, even if his "analysis" is incorrect (and therefore misleading) so I have not (yet) ignored him.|
I call this game "Evergreen" and not "Immortal" because the sac was unsound. With correct play, Chucky should have won. It's a fabulous and fascinating game but Kasparov's completely overshadows it IMO, his sac was sound to begin with and, even though he made a mistake in it (as we discussed there), his win is truly spectacular, much more than the finish here, cheers.
|Aug-17-11|| ||maxi: <DrMAL> I am sorry if I was rude before and/or overstated my case. Basically my point is that one should not trust computers too much. There are two fundamental reasons:|
1- A computer evaluation, say of a defensive position, is for <the computer> defending the position. It does not mean any human can defend it (or perhaps only Kasparov). Their evaluations do not work in many positions for practical human playing.
2- Chess is so complex that you cannot believe an evaluation just like that. As you may be aware, a computer relies, at the end of the branch ply calculation, on an evaluation funtion. This depends on the software, its version, and many intangibles having to do with the way the software is being implemented. Thus the engine can give a position +0.3, and actually have an inferior position that in practice would be -0.3 (The evaluation function in general does not depend on the number of plys. But they are always evolving as programmers get more experience.)
As a matter of fact sometimes I often find your comments enlightning and interesting, so please carry on. Just do not trust the machines so much. They are OK as a quick check on the tactics, but they cannot replace human analysis.
|Aug-17-11|| ||qqdos: Since posting the above I have been re-reading Graham Burgess's comments on this game (in The World's Greatest Chess Games - Nunn, Emms & Burgess) and I think he sums it up perfectly:
"Normally rapidplay games are scrappy affairs .... However, this one was a sacrificial masterpiece, on a par with Anderssen's games of the 1850's. Although Yusupov himself wasn't too impressed 'It amused the audience', the game was published and highly praised around the world.
Yusupov's attack isn't quite sound, it must be said, but it is very close indeed. After Ivanchuk misses his one defensive chance, the finish is nothing short of magical."!!!|
|Aug-18-11|| ||DrMAL: <qqdos> Thanx much, I have this book and had not checked it. On page 478 of this book, 28.Re6 was given an exclam, whereas I gave it a question mark above. Neither is correct.|
As I wrote above, Houdini hinted that 27...Re6 was a mistake with 28.Nce7 winning, but it did not compute long enough. I played out the line it gave (above) and it looked correct. I did not consider 28...Rg8 which draws. I had erased that 28.Rd3 still draws because I thought it no longer pertinent.
Summarizing, the following is true:
A) 24...Qxh4? was an unsound sac, losing to 25.Nce7+!
B) After 25.Nde7+ black draws via either 27...Bf6 or 27..Re6.
C) After 27...Re6 white draws via either 28.Rd3 or 28.Nec7
D) After 28.Qb7?! black got a nice advantage, not decisive
E) 31.Nce7+? (instead of 31.Nfe7+) loses to 31...Kh7
I can understand why Yusupov was not impressed, and also why others (including myself) were. The book's analysis of this game has errors, and some of its conclusions are misleading.
|Aug-18-11|| ||qqdos: <Dr.MAL> Thanx also. With time you will grow to love this game without diminishing your admiration for the Kasparov game. By the way what are the respective definitions of "Immortal" and "Evergreen" in this context?|
|Aug-18-11|| ||qqdos: <SWT> re: Chess Informator 53 (86/90), the 4 points dropped by Yusupov for this masterpiece were down to Smejkal and Speelman, who each gave it only 8/10 while the other 7 judges gave it straight 10's. Ironically, Speelman allotted his 10 also to Yusopov but for his 8th match game against Ivanchuk, while Smejkal preferred Karpov vs Anand (1-0). <DrMAL> from one flawed masterpiece to another of my favourites, can I tempt you to pass your "mincer" over Fischer's unplayed after-thought 20.Qf4! (instead of 20.a3??) in his game against Geller at Skopje, 1967?|
|Aug-18-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @qqdos
yeah, that's the cute thing. Nr.2, 26 points behind, was AJ*-VI! (52/573)
*Not that Pensecola weed
|Aug-18-11|| ||DrMAL: <qqdos> and <SWT> Thanx for the great kibitzing, I learned a lot and hopefully helped back. Don't get me wrong, I really DO love this game, I did so before but for a different reason. Tal sometimes (not often!) made objectively unsound sacs that, when viewed from a practical OTB standpoint, were probably the best possible. After understanding this game more, I think this was also the case here. But when doing so, often the author or such moves is unimpressed with himself, feeling guilty for winning. I have done this myself (made a "bad" sac that won) and felt this, so I can relate, you probably can too.|
The "Flawed Masterpiece" Fischer vs Geller, 1967 is another great classic I have not looked at in ages, thanx for the invite I will go mince on it too. :-) I feel foolish having taken a line from Houdini that I did not discover, that turned out wrong. Punishment for trusting an engine when it did not have sufficient time to compute. At least I was honest in writing it hinted the line to me, I later had a scapegoat! Ole AJ created several hilarious posts in Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999 having done a similar (OK, much more stupid) thing and kept trying to hide it, he never got honest.
|Aug-19-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<DrMal>
isn't that the truth! I bet Kramnik, sometimes, kicks himself for playing the white side of the Marshall Attack against Leko, where he employed a novelty which he gave his software a minute to look at. Leko - as big a specialist on both sides - won an easy point.
|Sep-15-11|| ||perfidious: <SimonWebbsTiger:...kicks himself for playing the white side of the Marshall Attack against Leko, where he employed a novelty which he gave his software a minute to look at. Leko - as big a specialist on both sides - won an easy point.>|
Charming little story, which sounds most uncharacteristic of Kramnik.
It was fortunate that it didn't cost him the title.
|Sep-30-11|| ||Jaideepblue: TWIC reporting on Ivanchuk's entry into the Candidates 20 years after this game (!)
|Oct-21-11|| ||indoknight: how about 30.Nce7! ? i dont see black win here...|
|Oct-21-11|| ||Sastre: <indoknight: how about 30.Nce7! ? i dont see black win here...>|
30.Nce7 Qh1+ 31.Bxh1 Nh2+ 32.Ke1 Rg1#.
|Oct-22-11|| ||indoknight: thanks Sastre ...|
|Jan-23-12|| ||whiteshark: Game annotated (in espanol+english) + video: http://www.onlinechesslessons.net/2...|
|Sep-29-12|| ||Everett: One of the absolute most lame puns for one of the most epic games ever played.|
|Sep-29-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I wonder what the kibitzing would look like if this game had been broadcast live.|
|Jul-23-13|| ||Nicckk: I'm just analysing in my head, so forgive me if I miscalculated, but couldn't black have saved himself the headache of that rook sac if he played the forced line 27...f3! The pawn must be taken otherwise mate is inevitable I think. 28. Bxf3 falls to Qf2#. And 28. exf3 loses to 28...e2+ 29. Ke1 exd1=Q++ 30. Kxd1 Qxb2. This line is completely forced and at the end black is up and exchange and the queen threatens the N on c6 and to skewer the rook with Qc1+. If I have made any mistakes please comment a reply. Thanks!|
|Jul-23-13|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<Nicckk>
27...f3 drops your queen.
|Aug-07-13|| ||offramp: < DrMAL: <qqdos> Ole maxi managed to troll his way onto my IGNORE list some time ago. At least <offramp> is trying and not being rude, even if his "analysis" is incorrect (and therefore misleading) so I have not (yet) ignored him.>|
Thank you for your valuable opinion. It will be the last opinion of yours I have to endure.
|Mar-15-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.lifemasteraj.com/great_c...|
|Mar-15-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Sometimes, you think no one notices ...
or - for that matter - you wonder if anyone even cares.
Game Collection: "The 100 Best Games," (of the 20th Century).
I just added this game today, but ...
someone e-mailed me, (a few weeks ago); I guess they had a copy of Soltis's book.
They asked that I not give up on filling out this game collection.
They also pointed out many problems with my web page, (like bad links, a couple of mis-spellings, etc.); and asked that I correct those as well.
|Mar-16-14|| ||LIFE Master AJ: One of the benefits of working on this game collection has been finding old web pages, some of them had not been touched in YEARS (the copyright date always shows me the last year a page was updated); and then I get to update them.|
|Jul-11-14|| ||cplyakap: Chess engines aren't always reliable.As well stockfish says 27...Re6?,White's advantage 6.71 but 10 moves later (no mistakes and blunders in 10 move) Black reaches winning position by -5.00 advantage.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·