| Jan-28-04 |
| ughaibu: There was an idea to use computers as analytic back-up in grandmaster chess. I presume it's been tried a few times in the manner of an exhibition or grotesquery though other than as another way in which to plague the public with computers it's a poor idea. For sure if I were playing I wouldn't want to entrust the calculational burden to a machine and even if I did so how would I spend the time during it's congitations if I were unfortunate enough to be making an exhibition of myself in this manner in one of those appalling no-smoking countries? In short, a daft idea, not least because the end result would merely be poor quality correspondence chess. This game is from the 2nd CC world championship, won by Ragozin, it might be interesting for more than just the fact that it was an entirely human production. |
 |
| Apr-19-04 |
| ughaibu: Apart from the similarities (to the Botvinnik game) in the final position, this game also suggests a conflict of assessment at move 30-31, and most remarkably things kick-off with b4 attacking a knight on c5 in both games. Having played the earlier game Ragozin would've had a significant experiential advantage in assessing the coming positions. I cant help wondering if his whole plan of b5 and Nb5-d4 wasn't directed to setting up the possibility. It would be very interesting to see the players' notes for this game. |
|
Apr-19-04
 |
| Gypsy: There is a little doubt in my mind that you see it acurately, <ughaibu>. |
|
Apr-19-04
 |
| meloncio: <ughaibu> <It would be very interesting to see the players' notes for this game> I have this game commented by Botvinnik in his book "Ragozin's Selected Games" (Spanish version). I could try the translation, but there is six pages only for this game (BTW, the last one of the book). Too much for my poor English and my laziness! I can tell you what Botvinnik writes after the final move: "Omnipotent knight! Always on time to defend and to attack! Now white can't avoid to lose material" |
|
| Apr-19-04 |
| Lawrence: <Gypsy>, (as the crotchety old ex-English teacher that I am) I think you mean "There is little doubt..." |
|
Apr-19-04
|
| Gypsy: Oh no! Thanks for catching that, <Lawrence>! Yes, I do concur with <ughaibu> speculations. |
|
| Apr-20-04 |
| ughaibu: Meloncio: Is six pages for one game about standard for Botvinnik's book? I would be particularly interested in anything Botvinnik had to say about black's 24th, 30th and 33rd moves and white's 31st move and, of course, any other remarks about the game that strike you as interesting. |
|
Apr-20-04
|
| meloncio: <ughaibu> No, six aren't the standard in the book; usual is 2-3 pages for every game. In the foreword, Botvinnik explains that Ragozin was slowly writing the book from some years ago, but he could finish because his illness (cancer) and death. He and others friends finished the work and published the book. So there are games commented by Ragozin (short comments) and others by Botvinnik (extended comments, like this one). By the way, he don't say who were the 'others friends'. "24. ... Nxb5!, If 24. ... axb5 25.Ra7 . Black don't want a passive defense." "30. ... Qf7. Very clever move. Black are ready to attack if white decides the exchange sacrifice in c5" "31.b4! ... Much better than 31.g5 then Rxf4"
"33. ... Rxf4 34.Bxf4 d3! Black must have seen this intermediate move from his 30. In case of 34. ... Qxf4 35.Rf1 Qxg5+ 36.Kh1 Nd7 37.Qc7 and Black are lost. Now the game must be a draw". He goes on and writes that White lose this game by the mistakes 39.Qf2 (better 39.Qd2) and 41.Qf2 (better Qc3). There is a long analysis for every move, but I think it's enough. Ooof, I'm tired! Not only the translation Spanish to English, but also the change from descriptive to algebraic notation. Go to bed ... |
|
Apr-20-04
|
| meloncio: Correction: ... but he could <not> finish because his illness (cancer) and death. |
|
| Apr-21-04 |
| ughaibu: Meloncio: Thanks, very interesting. |
|
| Apr-23-04 |
| ughaibu: Meloncio: It would be nice if you could make a collection of the games in the book. |
|
Apr-23-04
|
| meloncio: OK, I'll try it, but I will see how many games I must upload from the book. For instance, the first game of the book (Murdoch-Ragozin, 1928) is not in this database. I hope not many more ... |
|
| Apr-23-04 |
| ughaibu: Thanks. Most games are probably at Chessbase, so copying them is a fairly easy way to upload. |
|
| May-03-04 |
| barrister: This is a masterly game on Black's part, playing like a lovely Benoni gone good... |
|
| Sep-05-08 |
| dwavechess: In this games both player concur a lot with rybka 2.3.2 at 14 ply. |
|
| Sep-05-08 |
| dwavechess: Ragozin 75% moves concur with rybka |
|
| Sep-05-08 |
| ughaibu: What percent of Bergraser? |
|
| Sep-05-08 |
| dwavechess: 64% for Bergraser |
|
| Sep-05-08 |
| IT4L1CO: 13 .., exd5 is a good move! Now Bxd5+ doesn't work or Nd5 is too strong. Any good analyses?... |
|
| Sep-07-08 |
| ughaibu: Dwavechess: thanks. |
|
| Sep-09-08 |
| dwavechess: your wellcome!
|
|
| Sep-12-08 |
| dwavechess: With Rybka 3 at 3 minutes per move is 64% for ragozin 59 % for Bergraser |
|
sac: 33...Rxf4