|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jul-31-06
 |
| kevin86: Tal is drained by Penrose. lol
Finally,the sac-meister is hoisted on his own petard. The final chase is amusing-the black bishop is chased away from guarding the rook, who in turn, guards the queening square of white's pawn |
 |
Jul-31-06
 |
| Jack Kerouac: <Marvin Tsai>
Let us hope computers never become as 'intelligent' as humans. We can wreck havoc on this planet well enough without artificial intelligence intervention.
Though I still think the best way to beat a computer is the King's Indian Attack.... |
|
| Jul-31-06 |
| Mendrys: The picture looks like it was taken at move 11. Tal looks bored while Penrose looks pensive. 22....Na4 seems to be Tal's biggest mistake. He needed to worry about his Knight on d7 first. |
|
Jul-31-06
 |
| whatthefat: 20.f5! is a powerful thematic move. As <Albertan> pointed out above, black would have fared better with 19...f5. |
|
| Oct-09-06 |
| rodrigochaves: talking about that, anyone knows more games about this theme (e5-f5)? |
|
| Jan-16-07 |
| FHBradley: Without in any way wishing to belittle Penrose's fine achievement, it should be pointed out that the positional sacrifice -idea white follows in this game -- playing f2-f4 and e2-e4-e5 after first completing piece development -- wasn't very difficult to find. It was introduced by Kaarle-Sakari Ojanen, who first used it (successfully) against Paul Keres in a game that was played in a match between Finland and Estonia (Helsinki 15th May, 1960): Ojanen vs Keres, 1960. Ojanen and Eero Einar Book, who annotated the game, also pointed out that black's correct defence consists in Na6-c7, threatening the d-pawn, thereby undermining the pawn push e4-e5; if white exchanges the knight at a6, the resulting weakness in the pawn structure is more than compensated by a free piece play. Penrose got the idea from these notes, whereas Tal wasn't entirely happy with Keres, who had failed to show him the Ojanen game. |
|
| Jan-16-07 |
| code13: If the sac wasn't difficult to find then why didn't Tal find it and avoid it? And why wasn't Tal able to use the same note Penrose had done? On the computer issue, ironically I belive Jonathan Penrose retired from correspondence chess because he didn't want to be playing people who were using computers to generate their moves. |
|
| Jan-16-07 |
| FHBradley: re the sacrifice, the point is not simply about 19 e5!; it's about how white vs. black treats the entire opening. Black simply played the opening badly, developing the queen's knight to d7, rather than to a6; see also the following game: Mileika vs Tal, 1954, and you might begin appreciate the difference :-) |
|
| Jan-16-07 |
| FHBradley: <And why wasn't Tal able to use the same note Penrose had done?> I don't know. The fact is, he didn't know about Keres's game until after he had lost his own game. |
|
| Jun-15-07 |
| aazqua: Tal has to be one of the most overated chess players of all time. |
|
Jun-15-07
|
| whatthefat: <aazqua>
What makes you say that? |
|
Jun-15-07
 |
| Open Defence: <aazqua> if you are looking for flawless chess technique... then you might be dissapointed with some of Tal's games.. though there are a good number of games where he displayed excellent technique.. but Tal fires the imagination... in many of his games he would see the lines that were probably the best and then see lines that were the most interesting.. and Tal the artist is above all... probably only Bronstein comes close... |
|
Mar-24-08
 |
| chancho: <The Olympiad ended on the day before my birthday and I wanted to be free at the finish. Therefore I agreed with my fellow team members to play through the 'middlegame' of the Olympiad without a break. However, the day before the last round, for strictly private reasons, the captain of our team asked me to play. I 'threatened' him that I would lose, and I carried out my threat, although God knows, I didn't want to. It was just that the English master Penrose played the whole game very well.> From the book: The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal. |
|
Oct-23-08
 |
| Sem: Quite a feat to beat the Tal of 1960! |
|
| Dec-03-08 |
| MorphysMojo: Much as I appreciate Tal's brilliance, I will actually agree that he was overrated as a player, compared to the many other great players of his time, but not as a chess artist. As a chess artist he is on a par with Bronstein and others, as a player I would put him as the tactical version of Petrosian (how's that for a hard to see comparison). We never actually saw Tal at his potential best because the Soviet Government waited for years before they would allow doctors to remove his horribly diseased kidney. The Soviet Machine intensely disliked Tal and his humorous and at times hedonistic lifestyle reflecting poorly on them. When he was near the end of his prime, he finaly got the surgery, but the damage was done. I'm just grateful he was able to make the one last trip to the U.S. before he passed on. |
|
Dec-03-08
 |
| wanabe2000: <he was overrated as a player, compared to the many other great players of his time> Are you nuts? He was World Champion against the best of his contemporaries. Right up there with Capablanca and Fischer on win/loss percentage. On most people's list, top 5 ever to play the game. Your comments are ridiculous. |
|
| Dec-03-08 |
| sergeidave: An overview of this game with Dennis Monokroussos at 9 pm E.T. http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp... |
|
| Dec-03-08 |
| sergeidave: <Jack Kerouac>, <Marvin Tsai>, "intelligence" is a very broad term. And in this broad sense, I personally do not believe that computers will EVER become "intelligent". Of course, the unbelievable calculating power of these monsters have left us behind long time ago when it comes to solve algorithmic tasks and the like, but intelligence, in its stricter meaning, encompasses many more aspects which computers are far from being able to even emulate. |
|
| Dec-04-08 |
| MorphysMojo: Tal was World Champion for one year, and lost the return match by one of the broadest margins at that time and at any time. His endgame was suspect for a world champion. Top 5 all time? No way, Top 10 very possible. Does not compare well as a world champion to Seinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Karpov or Kasparov. Again, it was not Tals' fault, the Soviet chess machine limited and damaged his career. For the 1960's I would put him in the top 5 with Petrosian, Spassky and Fischer. Before and after the 60's decade, top 10. Was he in the top 5 as a brilliant chess artist? Yes. Top 5 for a world champion? No way. He gave great pleasure to the chess world and playing through his games is more than great fun, but that does not put him be in the top 5 as a world champion. The mental hedonistic pleasure of enjoying his games, clouds chess player judgment on his overall value as world champion. Objectively: tenure, match, and tournament record show the true picture of the players' quality, not the artists. |
|
Dec-04-08
|
| wanabe2000: <MorphysMojo> A reasoned response. Thank you. On closer examination, Tal had an equal record with Botvinnik 12-12-20, and Fischer 4-4-5 but a minus score against Keres, Smyslov, Spassky, Petrosian, Korchnoi, Karpov, and Kasparov. A plus score against Taimanov and Bronstein. Your comments seem objective. Maybe I'm the one who is "nuts". |
|
Dec-04-08
 |
| Benzol: <MorphysMojo> <Tal was World Champion for one year, and lost the return match by one of the broadest margins at that time and at any time. His endgame was suspect for a world champion.> I don't think that Tal was suspect at all in the endgame. See Game Collection: Mikhail Tal - Underrated Endgame Artist |
|
| Dec-04-08 |
| Jim Bartle: If it's true Tal lost the rematch by one of the largest margins ever, then he also won the first match by one of the largest margins ever. Tal won 12.6-8.5, then Botvinnik 13-8. Not much of a difference. |
|
| Dec-05-08 |
| MorphysMojo: I try to be objective when giving an opinion on a GM as much as I can so let me also add that I am a big fan of Tals'. I only enjoy Kasparov, Bronstein and Fischers' games more. I recall Tal losing some real key games (and they were heartbreakers) to Larsen, Korchnoi and Spassky in the endgame. However, I will also point out that Tal consistently kept his rating at or above 2600 back in the day when less than 10 players were usually at or above 2600. It's possible he was one of the most intimidating players in his day, (although those at the very top may not have been intimidated). The story with Benko and the sunglasses is evidence of the intimidation factor. |
|
| Dec-08-08 |
| vsadek: For those interested into Sir Roger Penrose (Jonathan's brother) thoughts on artificial intelligence , I can recommend his book “The Emperor's New Mind“. But, be aware, it is not an easy read and it requires a certain knowledge and understanding of mathematics, quantum physics, cosmology and computing.
http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-... |
|
Aug-30-09
 |
| Phony Benoni: <Jim Bartle: Tal won 12.6-8.5, then Botvinnik 13-8. Not much of a difference,> I take it Tal was awarded that extra tenth of a point for playing the Benoni? |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
