|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 14 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-30-03 | | Shadout Mapes: Certain computers (it might just be supercomputers and not the home ones) have endgame databases built in so they already know how to win or draw endgames up to, like, 2 or 3 pawns and pieces or so, just to give them an advantage. It's like a human bringing thousands of chess books to a game of chess and researching them all while playing. |
|
Sep-30-03
 | | Benzol: <patzer2;Shadout Mapes> Thanks guys |
|
| Dec-04-03 | | InspiredByMorphy: Thank you for posting that sneaky. I think its pretty classless of Fischer to publish a "drawing variation" for white, giving c3 for move 9 instead of Nc3. Why do I want to look at Fischers bitter analaysis, of a game which he only can find a draw in for himself at most. Fischers "bust" to the kings gambit, is the most sorry piece of work Ive ever seen. "The opening has been analayzed only romantically and not scientifically". Trying to discredit the merit of the kings gambit when he lost to it, seems childish to me. Not to mention, there are many,many,many more variations possible than what Fischer listed. The time I spent reading the article is unfortunately time I can never have back, but thats Ok. It just proves my theory more and more that Fischer is quite simply AFRAID of the Kings gambit. |
|
| Dec-04-03 | | Helloween: I don't think anybody is afraid of the King's Gambit these days. I didn't know anybody played it anymore. After all, it isn't 1850, and players who get the privelege of the White pieces typically don't like to give Black both a material and positional advantage. |
|
| Dec-04-03 | | InspiredByMorphy: According to the chessgames.com opening explorer database, The kings gambit as white wins 45%, losing 38%. Doesent exactly sound like black has some "material and positional advantage" simply due to the fact their black,and white plays the kings gambit. You provided no example of even opening play to back your statement furthermore. Good luck playing against it! |
|
| Dec-04-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Inspired by Morphy: The opening database statistics are more nice to white than they are in reality. There are a lot of old games in the database from the 1800s and early 1900s when King's Gambit theory still favored white. Modern theory has since found equality for black in most lines I know of, and significant advantages in others. |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | thekleinbottle: Benjamin Lau: Modern theory has since found equality for black in most lines I know of, and significant advantages in others. True, but if you are familiar with the opening and its strategies and like the types of positions that usually occur, why not play it anyway? At least that is what Spassky seems to think, as he plays many opening lines as white which are supposedly harmless for black (closed sicilian, king's gambit, nimzo-indian leningrad, etc.). Spassky has scored many brilliant victories with this opening and the others I mention. As far as the king's gambit goes, I think white usually gets the positional advantages--but has tactical minefields to deal with (depending on the variation) and material disadvantage. In all of the opening books or the KG book I own, black may get equality (or an unclear position) but not an advantage if white plays accurately. |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Thekleinbottle:
I never argued that InspiredByMorphy should stop playing the King's Gambit, I argued that his %'s are not very accurate because they are overall statistics with heavy influences from the 19th century. The problem is that we don't play like the people in the 19th century anymore. If you turn to http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... and look through the most recent pages (which contain games from the last decade), you'll notice that the win/loss ratio isn't quite as flattering as before to white. About Spassky, yes, he chose to play some pretty bad openings. Most of the time, it was really just because of his "universal" style. (His closed Sicilian just annihilated poor Geller.) But while he did score some brilliant victories in inferior variations, how do we know that he wouldn't have done better if he had, say, taken the route of Fischer in developing a repertoire filled with the best lines? I mean, Spassky after all was one of the least dominant world champions. (No offense to him of course, but do we see him on the same level as Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Morphy (kind of a champ), Smyslov, Botvinnik, etc?)) |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <In all of the opening books or the KG book I own, black may get equality (or an unclear position) but not an advantage if white plays accurately. > I dunno... Are those books written from the perspective of die hard KG fans of the *white* side? In either case, I think InspiredByMorphy should play it because it's fun, but the fact that modern theory indicates black at least equalizes is somewhat discouraging. |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | Spitecheck: Not written by Korchnoi are they, I've found his analysis (if it is indeed his) to be quite inaccurate especially in regards to opening play or who supposedely has the advantage. Fischer thought the same thing of Korchnoi obviously :). Spitecheck |
|
Dec-05-03
| | Benzol: "Without suspecting anything, with my next move I refute my own analysis!" - Viktor Korchnoi. He was refering to this game. A Planinc vs Korchnoi, 1975 |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | ughaibu: Spitecheck: That's very interesting. Perhaps what Korchnoi considers potentially exploitable in a position is different from what other players find, this might help to explain the under-popularity of his games. Lasker too. |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | Spitecheck: From my reading Korchnoi definitely likes the idea of a space advantage. That indicates a preference towards pawn structure rather than just pure piece play. His opening play is not flashy by any means and supposedely the ending with his experience has always been his long suit. While his middle game, which one might associate as determining perceived style more than any other phase is quite deep and thoughtful (but prone to the odd calculation error), probably strategic.....but crikes is he slow. Spitecheck |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | ughaibu: I wonder how Tal assessed openings? An advantage meaning a plethora of undecidables coming up for the opponent? |
|
| Dec-05-03 | | Spitecheck: What for just his opponent?? How's about himself LOL. His assessment may have simple been the infinity mark most of the time. You don't see much of his analysis around, which would give a clue. Did he write any books. Spitecheck |
|
| Dec-13-03 | | Marnoff Mirlony: <Fischer's post-game analysis in positions approaching end games is I suspect superior to that of most any computer's, including Fritz 8 running on my Pentium 4. And I don't doubt that Fischer could improve on this Fritz 8 analysis.> Fischer would defeat Fritz. Fritz is the strongest computer, but Fischer would still defeat it. No doubt about it. |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | ughaibu: However Fischer was unable to handle the problems that Spassky created for him in this game, the post mortem analysis, no matter who it's by, confirms the fact that Spassky outplayed Fischer in this game. |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | Spitecheck: I think it's fair to say that Fischer was outplayed by Spasski here, however doesn't Fischer in his own analysis show a win for the black pieces post mortem? Spitecheck |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | ughaibu: I dont think he showed a win but he showed a better chance late on. My post wasn't very serious, I was just rattling Marnoff Mirlony's cage. I dont think it really means much as far as the value of the result goes to show that either side had a winning position if they later lost, we might as well say at the start white has a small advantage but the position is drawish. |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | Spitecheck: True ugh, Marnoff Who? :)
No post mortem analysis will ever change the score of a game. Nor will hypothesising that a goal post could have been just a foot more to the left, aid a football team in changing the result of a football game. But knowing how history might have been, rather than just how it was is a fairly natural pursuit. Spitecheck |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | refutor: <refutation to the king's gambit> my favorite part of that article is the last line "of course White can play differently, but he will just lose differently" :) if i can use that mentality, i'm off to write an opening manual... |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | ughaibu: Refutor: How about "Refutor's refutation of the Latvian Gambit"? (Just teasing.) |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | Marnoff Mirlony: ...ughaibu the Rattlesnake...? |
|
| Dec-14-03 | | ughaibu: Thanks. The Rattlesnake: 1.b4 e6 2.Bb2 Nf6 3.e3 Bb4 4.g4 |
|
| Apr-19-04 | | Kenkaku: Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this game is that Fischer played 1...e5 in 1960. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 14 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
