< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 8 ·
|Dec-08-11|| ||kia0708: I hope KingCrusher will make video of this game !|
|Dec-08-11|| ||Sneaky: In the press room after this game, Nakamura said that Aronian gave him some priceless advice about calculating KID middlegames:|
<Don't waste time calculating moves of your opponent!>
It sounds bizarre but I see what they mean. You need a plan, and a plan is a bunch of moves that YOU are going to play. So that is the #1 thing you need, a bunch of moves that you play, not so much the moves that the other guy plays.
|Dec-08-11|| ||frogbert: < I hope KingCrusher will make video of this game >|
he already did and announced it here, on naka's page and the tournament page.
|Dec-08-11|| ||AylerKupp: <<Marmot PFL> Can't remember the last time I even saw a computer in time pressure.>|
In my experience Rybka gets into time trouble fairly often. It seems to take an inordinate amount of time early in the game and, if the time control does not allow for time extensions per move, runs out of time at the end and (like humans), plays weaker and weaker.
I once saw it play a game against Houdini where it got short of time in a closed and clearly drawn position. As the time control got close, it was unable to search as deeply as it normally would and its play got worse and worse. And, the closer it got to the time control, the worse it played, unable to search more than 5 – 6 plies or so. It was sad to see the quality of its play disintegrate and fall apart, losing pawn after pawn and eventually the game. I actually felt sorry for it.
|Dec-08-11|| ||WiseWizard: <sneaky> He didnt specifically say KID middlegames, it was just a general statement.|
Who here is going to be the guinea pig and try this out in tournament games? Ill stick to considering my opponent plans and we'll discuss.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Everett: Some openings may take more effort than others, the KID being one of them... But so what? Radjabov has made it viable for nearly his whole career, with great results. With the right effort, ability, and temperament, many things are possible.|
And this line is alive and well for Black.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Riverbeast: <And this line is alive and well for Black>|
The reason why many elite players don't play it, is precisely because of its dicey and dodgey nature
One has to have a certain temperament to play the KID, and have a feel for these positions
Many 1.d4 players believe what Viktor Korchnoi (one of my personal chess heroes, btw) said....That the KID 'loses by force'
And yet it has stood the test of time...And the slings and arrows of its detractors
KID players are a strange breed...'True believers' some call them....'Delusional'...'Fanatics'...et al
We believe in the inherent creativity and dynamism of black's possibilities, in the face of all current theory and comp evals
When you play the KID, you are a man of faith....You do as my friend from Spain told me (apparently, it's an old Spanish saying)
"Arrive, and kiss the Saint"
|Dec-08-11|| ||Hesam7: <Sneaky: <Hesam7: <Anyway this is a game of very poor quality which shows both players (I would say Anand more than Nakamura) are out of form.>|
He beats the world champion, and you say "that shows he's out of form." Thank goodness he didn't lose!>
I am not arguing from the result but from the blunders. Here is a short version of the game:
Nakamura played several bad moves in the opening (14. ... f4?, 20. ... cxb6?) and Anand had an absolutely winning position from move 21 until he blundered with 29. Nc4?? which makes the game equal. But Anand follows up the blunder with a series of bad moves (30. Bd5?!, 31. Rf2?, 33. Ra5?!) after which Nakamura is winning. But this is not the end of the story, Nakamura blunders with 37. ... a5?? after which the game is equal again but Anand plays 40. Rxa5?? and Black is winning again. You might argue that the last two blunders happened in time trouble but the appalling quality continued after the time control as well. After 42. ... Bd4?? 43. Rd5! White can look forward to a draw but Anand committed the final blunder by playing 43. Bd1??.
A game with so many blunders just shows poor quality and I think Anand is in worse shape b/c he gave away a winning position and then "obtained" a losing position and twice he was given a chance to get back in the game he did not take them.
|Dec-08-11|| ||AylerKupp: <<whiteshark> Chess computers do not sweat during time pressure and commit costly blunders ... – Ira Carmen>|
See my post above in response to <Marmot PFL>. Although I must admit that I didn't see the computer running Rybka sweat.
And comments about computers' inadequacies in the areas of positional values, long-range strategies, aesthetic judgment, etc. are hardly noteworthy, bordering on the trite, and stating that these characteristics remain staples of human performance regardless of evidence to the contrary strike me as the comments of someone who is in a state of denial.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Riverbeast: <Hesam7> All your 'blunders' were found by computers|
So as far as I'm concerned, they don't count
I want everybody to put away their comps, analyze the position and play it through THEMSELVES, then come back to me with the 'series of blunders'
ANY game...Including some of the most 'Brilliant of All Time'.... Would probably just be a 'series of blunders' to a comp
That's the problem with chess analysis and evaluation these days...Everybody uses their comps, instead of their own brains
I agree 100% with Nakamura in his comments to this game, and his philosophy about computers
|Dec-08-11|| ||frogbert: <Nakamura played several bad moves in the opening (14. ... f4?, >|
14... f4 bad? but that's the entire concept of naka's opening - he has absolutely no intention of taking on e4, for instance. if he's done anything wrong by move 15, then it clearly must be earlier than 14... f4 i think.
|Dec-08-11|| ||frogbert: <I agree 100% with Nakamura in his comments to this game, and his philosophy about computers>|
riverbeast, maybe you should consider some more concrete lines first - modern chess is very concrete, also when played by the elite gms.
also a line doesn't stop counting because it happens to be found by an engine. only when the engine is wrong (which it can be) or when the line is of a kind that normnally isn't "realistic" for a human (on the elite level) does it make any sense to disregard concrete lines (found by engines).
see my response to boz on the naka page, if you haven't already.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Riverbeast: <or when the line is of a kind that normnally isn't "realistic" for a human (on the elite level) does it make any sense to disregard concrete lines (found by engines)>|
In my opinion, comp lines should be disregarded much more often than not
Because they are almost completely irrelevant to the chess game at hand, and the HUMANS playing it
I'll give you a perfect example
On certain chess sites, while Anand was considering his 20th move, all the comp assisted kibitzers were screaming for 20. bxa7
According to the comps, this move led to a +1.4 or +2 compe eval...Maybe more
The point is, no human would ever consider 20. bxa7....And I don't care what your rating is, I still think you should understand why....On a very basic, gut level
Vishy's 20. Nb5 looks much more accurate to most human players (including the WC)
Plug in 20. Nb5 on your comps and see what its eval is....Compared to 20. bxa7
I'm guessing the comp probably says 20. Nb5 is a 'blunder'...or a third or fourth best move??
Comp chess and real, human chess are really two different games....You may as well be comparing chess to go, or checkers, or tiddlywinks
I realize the benefit of comps for analysis...For finding the truth in a position before or after the game....Mostly before (for preparation) or after ( to see where you may have gone wrong)
But even Anand said comps don't tell you everything you need to know....I think in most of situations, the engines need to be turned off and put aside
|Dec-08-11|| ||BadKnight: no disrespect to anyone but without computer assistance most of the kibitzers here will be lost to oblivion about what is happening between two GMs in a live game. computer is just a tool and it does what a machine does best. it should be used wisely, but there is no point in forgetting the machine and living in complete denial mode.|
|Dec-08-11|| ||frogbert: < without computer assistance most of the kibitzers here will be lost to oblivion about what is happening between two GMs in a live game >|
well, i must prefix with your intro - no disrespect to anyone - but watching chess on icc, my impression is that most kibitzers <with> engines are even more lost, because they now think they have a clue about what's going on when they clearly don't.
but i agree about your main point, badknight - using engines wisely, if you can, is better than some extreme "denial mode".
to me riverbeast's point of view sounds a bit too radical, and this paraphrasing of anand - <comps don't tell you everything you need to know...> - implies that they can tell us a whole lot. not that they should be turned off most of the time.
to me it feels like hesam7 and riverbeast are too far to the extreme here - on opposite sides, of course. there's a middle road somewhere, i'm sure.
|Dec-08-11|| ||BadKnight: in the post game analysis even nakamura himself dodged the question about whether he ever felt that he was *objectively* lost at any point in the game. this has been discussed here quite a bit, so i dont want to go into it again. he won, so he had every reason to be happy, and he was. but even nakamura admitted that quality-wise its not one of the best games he played. but his fans are living in a complete denial mode, and trying their level best to prove that naka played a great game. this is very annoying.|
from practical point of view, in the early middle gamne many top grandmasters strongly preferred white side. if computer evaluation is not good enough then this is good enough for me to conclude that white was much better.
my final comment on this issue is: if nakamura really believes black was okay, and the position has more than initial surprise value then he would probably repeat the line again later sometime against a top gm. i presume we will have to wait and see...
|Dec-08-11|| ||Shams: <frogbert><riverbeast, maybe you should consider some more concrete lines first - modern chess is very concrete, also when played by the elite gms.>|
<Riverbeast> has OTB GM scalps on this very site-- I think he's aware of the concrete nature of modern chess.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Riverbeast: <Shams> I hear what you're saying, but I think my own playing strength is irrelevant|
The truth is, I'm a fish compared to most GMs
Most GMs are fish to the Super GMs
The World Champion, apparently, is a complete fish to the comps....Because he made a 'series of blunders' this game!
My question is, what does this have to do with the game at hand? And more importantly, our own (real) understanding of it?
Nakamura said he did not think he was objectively lost....Even though the comps did
Well, he won the game anyway....Despite being 'lost'...Against the best, or one of the best, human players on the planet
So who was right? The comps, or Nakamura?
Sort of like that 'tree falls into the forest' question, isn't it? :-)
|Dec-08-11|| ||Shams: <Riverbeast> Well, I haven't been following very closely, but if <frogbert>'s point is that Nakamura is playing games with the word "objectively" than I must agree. |
I have a question that I'd ask Nakamura if he were here, but since he's not I'll ask you. Supposedly the engines had Nakamura's position down the equivalent of a rook at one point. What if instead the engines declared, in the middle of that insanely complex middlegame, the engines declared a mate in 45 for White? Would Nakamura still say he wasn't "objectively" lost?
I think a better answer for Nakamura is "Probably I was objectively lost, but my point is it doesn't matter." After winning such a game, he'd be totally entitled to say that.
|Dec-08-11|| ||acirce: <I think a better answer for Nakamura is "Probably I was objectively lost, but my point is it doesn't matter.">
That is pretty much how I interpreted his answer. I suggested that he might simply not know what "objectively" means. Because it obviously doesn't make sense to say he wasn't objectively lost - and then qualify it with "for a human".|
btw, no strong engine gave a +5 eval for White for more than a brief time. Houdini quickly lowered to "only" +2.xx. You <definitely> can't trust "instant" evals in positions like this. There are many ways to misuse engines, but then again, they can be used constructively too, even in the KID (as <frogbert> illustrates).
|Dec-08-11|| ||Shams: <acirce> <I suggested that he might simply not know what "objectively" means.> He knows what it means. He just didn't want to be objective at that moment. Surely you have played opponents like this.|
<btw, no strong engine gave a +5 eval for White for more than a brief time.>
Ahh, I only watched the post-game presser where they were relying on the instant evals. Your point is taken.
|Dec-08-11|| ||Riverbeast: <Supposedly the engines had Nakamura's position down the equivalent of a rook at one point>|
<What if instead the engines declared, in the middle of that insanely complex middlegame, the engines declared a mate in 45 for White?>
Let's take both questions separately....Because they really are separate questions
If a computer has you at -5, I guess you are 'objectively lost'....Same as -1, or -2
In other words, if you are playing Rybka, you have no chance
But these evals are based on some strange considerations
And if you are a KID player, you realize how strange...and almost irrelevant....Some of these evals are
Another example: A lot of KID players willingly sacrifice the exchange, just to get white's dark square bishop off the board
Here, the comp would probably have black at -2....And the comp would probably win every game
But the KID player sees dynamic potential on the dark squares....And thinks he is at least equal....If not having the 'better half' of the draw
Maybe human chess is more a question of perception...Instead of cold calculation
Which brings me to your second question
If a comp saw a forced mate for my opponent in 45 moves (I don't even know if a focced mate in 45 is possible, so lets say for arguments sake it was 25), I still probably wouldn't think I was objectively lost
I would have to see the specific position, of course....
But if it was a forced mate in 25 (in an otherwise relatively balanced position), I probably wouldn't see it, and probably wouldn't think I was lost
And unless my opponent was chipped...or some kind of Super-Genius...He or she probably wouldn't see it either....And therefore probably never thought they were 'objectively winning' (even though they were)
So again we have the tree falling in the forest that nobody hears...Or the asteroid collison in a remote galaxy....
|Dec-08-11|| ||acirce: <He knows what it means.>|
I suppose. But it seems just from looking at the discussion about his statement here on this site that there is a remarkable amount of confusion about it among intelligent people. But then again, I suppose not all of them want to be objective either. :)
|Dec-08-11|| ||King Death: <Shams: <acirce> <I suggested that he might simply not know what "objectively" means.> He knows what it means. He just didn't want to be objective at that moment. Surely you have played opponents like this.>|
There was a player I knew who got to master level and he had to win every point in analysis. Psychological, objective, you name it. It just wore you out and things got to where I wouldn't analyze with him any more.
Like <Riverbeast> says, I wouldn't have given 20.ba7 serious consideration. This is just the subconscious at work (that "feel" we've discussed here from playing these middlegames).
|Dec-08-11|| ||Shams: Maybe truth to a competitor is whatever set of beliefs he needs to fuel his optimal performance. If Kasparov needed to believe that the planets aligned in celestial kabuki whenever his title was threatened, and if that belief galvanized him in his play, what's the point of my telling him he's wrong?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 8 ·