< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|May-08-05|| ||aw1988: Speak for yourself. Ahem.|
|May-08-05|| ||Karpova: predicting your opponent's moves should be calculating not guessing. if either you or your opponent is really bad it might be guessing but you should always consider your opponent to make good moves.
it's hard if you go for secure lines because a little sac or a combo may have flaws in it but after the game is finished and you analyze with your opponent you may experience him to have no idea of what was going on in the position at all...|
so it's up to you to decide if you want to go for dubious lines hoping for your opponent not to find the right defense or consider him to be at least as good as you are.
|May-09-05|| ||Kingdumb: Well, I guess everyone missed my point. Most likely because I didn't state it clearly enough. I'm not suggesting that we don't try to "calculate" our oppenents next move. Believe me, I do. All I'm saying is tbat we cannot with 100% certainty know that the move we're counting on is going to be the move played. If that were the case there would be no reason to play the games. We just state our openings to each other, play book for the next 10-15 moves and then when someone decides to break out of book just reference a database to see who's going to win the game based on what moves "should be" played next. But it doesn't work that way. There will always be surprise moves no matter how good you are and no matter how well you think you can calculate, especially in the more complicated positions where I've seen Fritz calculate as many as 30 possible continuations, all of them being viable. As humans I seriously doubt many of us can calculate that many possible variations. Maybe GK and a few others can but I'm sure the majority of us can't.|
Please understand, I am not suggesting we abandon the attempts to calculate our oppenents moves. All I'm saying is don't be surprised when he doesn't live up or down to our expectations.
|May-10-05|| ||Karpova: <Kingdumb>
Very intersting point though quite obvious. It's useless to discuss it since it would take a mindreader to guess the opponent's moves 100% correctly.
|Jul-14-05|| ||nikolaas: What about 22.exf6 Qxh2 23.Rxd7 Kxd7 24.fxg7 Bxg7 25.Qxf7?|
|Sep-23-05|| ||Bogdanel: That's another proof of what Vlady can do when he really wants to. Excuse the banality of my comments, but this is simply amazing(didn't knew about the game until now)If the names weren't written i could have sworn black is Deep Fritz or some powerfull computer|
|Sep-23-05|| ||ughaibu: A sad reflection on modern chess culture when comparing a human to a computer is intended as praise.|
|Sep-23-05|| ||bane77: It is very likely that this is a home preparation, because this sacrifice is in a known position in theory, and it's around move 20 where everything is played million times so far. It's impossible to see that far (till the 33th move) in a table. There are so many possible moves that white can play.
My opinion about calculatiing moves and variants, it is possible to see 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 moves, depends on how many pieces are in the table and how many possible moves can be played. In an endgame, deep calculation is necessary, but GM's know exactly which positions are winning or drawing and they calculate only those variants which might lead them to those positions.
But in an position with many pieces on table, you are all very wrong. GMs make mistakes in just one move even if they are not in zeitnot or they are not tired. Frequently they can't find winning combination in just 2-3 moves. Sometimes they are blinded with some variants and they calculate one variant deeply, but they completely miss another variants because they don't consider them at all.
Just read one GM's comment or analysis. He often says - I played this move, and it was a mistake, because I didn't see this move in this variant! And the move he didn't see is maybe 2 or 3 moves after his first move!
Of course, top GM's probably calculates deeper than others with ELO 2500-2600 and rarely make mistakes.
If someone thinks that, for each move in a chessgame, one grandmaster can calculate 10 moves ahead and consider every possible variant, then he would be apsolute No.1 and unbeaten in each game; he could not make mistake at all.
Also, one thing GM's are afraid of is replacing classic chess with FisherRandom chess. Knowing theory is reducing possibilities of mistake until 25th move or more, which is very important. Big money and reputation are involved, and sure thing is that many GM's wouldn't be as successful as they are now.|
|Sep-23-05|| ||ughaibu: "One thing GM's are afraid of is replacing classic chess with FisherRandom chess", might as well be afraid of the Earth being swallowed by a black hole, I doubt if even those who like to talk about calamitous eventualities take the possibility of them actually happening seriously.|
|Sep-23-05|| ||Jim Bartle: Let's imagine a typical middle-game position with queens still on, and try to look ahead 5 moves. That's 10-ply. This is simplistic, I realize, but let's imagine that 4 of the moves are absolutely forced. Of the 6 remaining moves, let's figure there are 4 possible moves for each. That leads to 4,092 positions to evaluate. Even if some are the same through transposition, we're still talking 3000 positions to evaluate. That seems a pretty tough task for pure calculation.|
If we count only 3 possibilities for each of the 6 moves, that leads to only 729 positions, but if we project 5 for each move, the total jumps to 15,625.
So how many reasonable positions arise 5 moves ahead?
|Sep-28-05|| ||Zorts: I'm surprised that this one only has three game collections.|
|Dec-10-06|| ||Ch3ckmate: <Jim Bartle> How did you count that out?|
|Dec-10-06|| ||Karpova: <Ch3ckmate>
4^6 = 4096
3^6 = 729
5^6 = 15625
|Dec-10-06|| ||Ch3ckmate: huh? what does the ^ stand for?|
|Dec-10-06|| ||Karpova: 4^6 = 4*4*4*4*4*4|
|Mar-15-07|| ||beginner64: <Calli "What is the follow up to: 26 Rxh4?">I am sure you noticed that after 26. Rxh4, 0-0 is not an option.|
|Mar-16-07|| ||shalgo: <I am sure you noticed that after 26. Rxh4, 0-0 is not an option.>|
Why isn't it?
|May-11-07|| ||maximocapcom: the rook will rc4|
|Jul-11-07|| ||sanyas: Drawnik strikes again.|
|Jul-11-07|| ||acirce: This was one of Kramnik's best games in his Linares debut (17 years old), where he scored a very respectable +2 with clear 5th place in a 14-player field.|
<Most of the players considered me to be the weakest or one of the weakest of the participants. Ivanchuk told me that before the tournament he had been thinking against whom he was going to win and the first player that came to mind was me.> (Kramnik, New In Chess 1993/4)
|Oct-18-07|| ||Mateo: 22...Qxc3 (!? or even ?!) was impressive but is it really sound? I don't see any clear reason why Kramnik didn't play the simple 22...Qb8. White's compensation would be unclear.|
|Jul-10-09|| ||percyblakeney: <Ivanchuk told me that before the tournament he had been thinking against whom he was going to win and the first player that came to mind was me>|
Maybe some underestimation there, Kramnik was ahead of Ivanchuk already on the upcoming rating list. He should have thought of Salov, Bareev, Timman and Gelfand, by the way, if he had wanted to get his predictions right.
|Aug-28-09|| ||znsprdx: I thought Kibitzer's cafe is the place for this general type of discussion.|
I noticed <nikolaas: What about 22.exf6[N] Qxh2[B] 23.Rxd7[B] Kxd7[R] 24.fxg7 Bxg7[?] 25.Qxf7+>
interesting but surely at least 24...Be7 which keeps White's hopes alive
|Jul-29-10|| ||Blunderdome: Kramnik annotates this in "My Life and Games" and says 23...Qb8 is strongest.|
|Mar-25-17|| ||Toribio3: Very depth!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·