|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 503 OF 707 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-11-14 | | DPLeo: I just tried:
24.axb4 TB win 137
just to see if we have a way to claim a tablebase win and it was rejected. We may not need the functionality for this game but it may come in handy some day to have the ability to claim a TB win. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | truefriends: I can even vote <Qd4>... Seems like there isn't any connection to chess software. Just a voting application. |
|
Oct-11-14
 | | HeMateMe: 24.b4 works, too. Same difference. |
|
Oct-11-14
 | | mistermac: You are right, <HMM>. Which leaves 5 singletons unaccounted for. |
|
Oct-11-14
| | HeMateMe: r u a singleton? |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | 2phil4u: Voted a few moves, now i have a partner with g4, the hocus pocus winning move ;) |
|
Oct-11-14
 | | AylerKupp: <<kwid> At the time of his discovery our engines evaluations indicated that a draw was inevitable> Come again? The engine evaluations did not indicate any such thing. Even an evaluation of [0.00] does NOT indicate that a draw is inevitable (although that is probably the most likely outcome); it indicates that the chances are EVEN for both sides. And at the time of <DaringSpeculator>'s discovery Komodo was consistently giving evaluations in the [+0.10] to [+0.50] range. Not particularly great for White but certainly better than [0.00]. <Instead of the Bb4/Rf8 line we should have played the most solid move order and accept a draw and not going on a fishing expedition diluting our Team's thinking process.> The team's thinking processes are in no way being diluted. On the contrary, we are still trying to find moves and lines that will maximize the chances that GMARK will make an inaccuracy based on the engines' continuing low evaluation for White. If you want to give up, roll over, and play accept a draw, that's your prerogative. Just continue voting for the safest move and accompany it with a vote for a draw offer. Or just stop participating in the game. But either is just an admission that you are willing to let your thinking processes not just be diluted, but stopped. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DaringSpeculator: <MuzioFan: I believe that <DS> stated that <34.Rc1> was an improvement over his old line, and that this move now is the new main line. I certainly get better positions after this move.> You are correct. If memory serves you are the first one who mentioned 34. Rc1 as a possible improvement over 34. Rxd4, which I discovered later that it gives Black some drawing chances. So <34.Rc1> is now the main line. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: <kwid: <YouRang:>
<- the best chances for a winning outcome. After 14.e4,- was the one found by <DaringSpeculator>
At the time of his discovery our engines evaluations indicated that a draw was inevitable. Thus there was no reason for us to assume that our GM opponent did not have the same data. Instead of the Bb4/Rf8 line we should have played the most solid move order and accept a draw and not going on a fishing expedition diluting our Team's thinking process. I emphasize the importance to always accept that our opponent has the latest theoretical position assessment and will select the line continuation with a move order generated with deep ply engine evaluation. Our winning strategy must be based on the ability to improve on the best known positions still containing an unclear assessment as well as deep engine analysis exceeding our opponents search horizon. The strength of our diversity consisting of a wide variety of experiences has and will be a challenge for obtaining consensus for goal setting. Unless we can present convincing arguments about our individual shortcoming to play at a GM level we have to struggle to keep playing at a lower level closer to our individual ratings with engine assistants.> I quote this in full, as know-it-all stuffing. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: <kwid: our engines evaluations indicated that a draw was inevitable> what does this even mean? |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: <kwid: Thus there was no reason for us to assume that our GM opponent did not have the same data.> What is the postmortem on our previous two crushing victories? |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | karpkasp: <24. axb4 Rd4 25. Re2 Bh4 26. g3 Bg5 27. Bc2>
Here, 27... Rf8 and 27... Rf3 have been analysed but Black may have another option with a positional exchange sac introduced by 27... Rxb4!?
click for larger viewThe idea is to simplify the position and especially to capture the white e pawn as in the variation below. 28. Bxf5 gxf5 29. Rxa7 Kf7!? (Stockfish prefers 29... Be7 which looks good too) 30. e6+ Ke7 
click for larger view31. Ra5 Bf6 (31... b5 is also interesting) 32. Rxf5 Rb6! 33. Kg2 Rxe6 34. Rxe6+ Kxe6 35. Rb5 b6 
click for larger viewStockfish gives an edge to white close to 1 pawn, but I don't see how to win this.
Any views from our endgames specialists ?
It looks like the white passer should stay in e5, because 29. e6 Kf8 30.Rxa7 Ke7 transposes in the variation above.
I'm wondering how white can make progress if the passer is "blocked" in e5. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: <kwid: Instead of the Bb4/Rf8 line we should have played the most solid move order and accept a draw and not going on a fishing expedition diluting our Team's thinking process.> Here, I've been wondering what you suggest, and you mention 'the most solid move order', which is what? |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: focus up. |
|
Oct-11-14
 | | OhioChessFan: <DPL: I think those of us that are still here have learned and are wiser. The problem is the 250 or so voters who are not here now, not learning, not any wiser, and will be back for the first 5 moves or so of the next game.> Yep.
<We need a way to address this phenomena or no amount of opening preparation and planning will matter.> Short of CG.C enforcing something like a provision that you had to have voted X times in previous games before voting in the first 5 moves of the next game, which ain't gonna happen, it ain't gonna happen. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: <kwid>, yak yak yak. Fact is that 23...Nxb4 was dubious, and White has winning chances. Suck it up. Since you so love philosophical maundering, I'll add more. You may suppose, that others don't drone on repetetively as much as you because they can't figure out how to do it. I think you would say that you are striving for systematic, --an unquestionably good thing, you would say. I might say that you are striving for empty schematic. We can agree, perhaps, that you are seeking a clear system. Indeed, you appear to feel that you have fought your way through to such a system. You have fallen, I think, into interpreting everything that is posted, in the sense of your system. And, to reject whatever does not fit into your system. Your posts are merely about your conceptual world, that you are restricted by the adherence to. Too much. If there was a substantive message here, I don't think it needs to be posted four times a day through the whole game. You might consider giving up on the rest of us losers. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: <kwid>, two seconds of research, yields this: I see that we are on page 499. I jumped to page 399 to copy/paste this: <kwid: < john barleycorn:>
<Very few games are played with "one plan" from beginning to end.> <Plans have to be adapted to the position on the board which was created by 2 opponents.> Who would argue with that? But let me say that when ever we start a game both players usually have an objective or a wish list in their minds, right?For an example; you like to play the KI defense and remember how your opponent with white plays against it. Therefore you actually hope to reach positions which your are most familiar with or have prepared a line which seem to refute his latest attempt to win against the KI. Could this not be described as to having a game plan with a specific goal or positions to aim for? So therefore if you see c4/d4o Nf3 you reply with Nf6 trying to set up a KI position and so on. <illustrate that we aimlessly play moves and cannot even play consistently with our prior choices.> In an actual game one could be confronted with an unexpected move triggering your memory recall and if void you make the best move according to your experience with anticipation what you will see next and have already a move prepared. But if your opponent moves very quickly you may feel that he has a plan already prepared which makes you hesitate and reevaluate your previous view point about the position and may change direction in order to get your opponent derailed. <For the world I will NOT quote about the many cooks who spoil the broth as we can always blame the oven (engine):-).> This should be a normal and healthy occurrence from which we derive our playing strength. Diversity or different view points generated from our experience or personal preferences will effect our voting for different directions unless we get early consent for the ways or aims to reach a predetermine goal or follow a plan.> |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | Tiggler: <DanLanglois> Since you obviously think all that is drivel, why repost it? <kwid> will kept giving us fresh installments, I guess. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: <kwid>, it was me who was discussing it w/you then, here is more of the thread: <DanLanglois: I think of the 'objective' like this. Two guys are drowning in the ocean. Help will not arrive. These guys are flailing around, getting tired, swallowing water. But the only thing that matters is that the other guy die first, my 'objective' is to see that happen, even though we are both doomed. So maybe I kick him in the head, etc. This is a different way to look at strategy, then piously supposing that we're trying to build something constructive, and I think it's a good analogy for a chess game. As the pieces come off, you know the game will end. But you want you opponent to run out of moves before you do. And you don't mind doing something that hurts, that maybe causes you to swallow some water, if it hurts your oppoenent more than it hurts you. So you perhaps sack your queen, etc.
My 'wish list' is a win, --a win is where you find it.> <DanLanglois: All this cant about planning, the fact is that you are more likely to lose for playing w/a plan, it's what I wish on the opponent. Chess coaches tell b-players to play w/a plan, and that's edifying, but also one of the things that later will be holding you back.> <kwid: <DanLanglois>: <All this cant about planning, ..>Well, A good coach try's to instill an awareness of historical use full ideas to hopefully get the student to adopt the masters ways and plant the seeds to get beyond the already known practice of the masters if the talent exists. I would like to point out that strong players are not floundering but do have position in their minds which may well reach over 30 moves. And yes, they have the knowledge acquired to handle historical opening attempts to surprise them. This also holds true for solving basic endgame strategy at blitz tempo.> <DanLanglois: 'strong players' do you mean the OP?> Etc. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: <truefriends: <kwid: Our applied game strategy certainly lacks clarity for such a high profile event. As a potential future learning reference it should be high lighted that the opening goal was to refute the C67 ELO main line.
Later discovery of this erroneous assumption led to the adoption of C65 ELO known as a solid defense with an almost assured draw outcome.> Don't forget to mention we also misplayed the C65 resulting in an absolutely equal middlegame.> I take none of this at face value. I take the sentiment to be that as of 6.O-O, the game has already been misplayed (in that one may suppose Black to have equalized): 
click for larger view Note, that right at the moment, one can hardly say that we're looking at 'a solid defense with an almost assured draw outcome.' |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | cormier: RV ... <Section B: 24.axb4 Hocus-Pocus lines> --- [+0.00] d=30 24.axb4 Rd4 25.Re2 Bh4 26.g3 Bg5 27.Bc2 Rf8 28.h4 Be7 29.Bb3+ Kh8 now (A) 30.b5 +0.11/28 30...Rb4 31.Be6 g5 32.hxg5 Rxb5 33.g6 and transpose into (B) below (B) [+0.08] d=32 30.b5 g5
**31.h5 +0.38/29 31...Rb4**** 32.Be6 Bc5*** 33.b3 Rd4 34.Rc1 Bb6 35.Bc4 Bc5 36.e6 h6 37.e7 Re8 38.Bf7 Rxe7 39.Rxe7 Bxe7 40.Rxc7 Bd8 41.Rxb7 Bb6 42.Re7 Rd8 |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: Indeed, my opinion is that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 5.c3 O-O 6.O-O d6 7.Nbd2 here, Black might not have done best to play 7..Ne7. He's got half-a-dozen reasonable moves, but 7...Ne7 (not one of the moves I mean) provokes 8. d4, giving this:
click for larger view Which after 8...exd4 9. cxd4 Bb6 White to move
click for larger view White has something of an edge, --more options, in terms of possible pawn structures to get into, for example. And I believe that this has paid off. So for me, this is the story. Even deciding on an immediate move, is a rather pleasant thing to contemplate, here. I'm recalling a time when we had achieved a good mobile center. This isn't the fruits of White having 'misplayed' -- we're not playing some ultra-sophisticated version of chess where these things don't count anymore? Whatever doubts we legitimately had about how we handled the opening, were in abeyance at this moment in the game, I should think. And of course one can't complain about where we are now, either. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DPLeo: We don't all have the same opinion about our opening in this game. IMO, after we were "stuck" with 1.e4 we made the best of it by not playing directly into the mass exchanges associated with the Berlin. I think we did the best we could with the cards we were dealt up to 14. At which point we erased all the progress that it took to undo the first mistake. Now, I think we are working very hard to try and undo the second mistake. Unfortunately it's more dependent on his moves than ours. Here's to hoping for 27... Rf8 |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | DanLanglois: I give up, I'm thinking 'pearls before swine', which isn't very nice. |
|
| Oct-11-14 | | Tiggler: Don't give up. Find us some truffles. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 503 OF 707 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 