|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-26-05 | | who: I guess the reason this game shocks me is because (well for one, as far as I can tell, it wasn't blitz or rapid) there is an unsound sacrifice which both GMs think is good. It is clear which move is the one which needs to be considered. And yet both players misevaluate. |
|
| Aug-27-05 | | Landman: Consecutive blunders? Finally, a chess challenge at which I can outperform grandmasters. |
|
| Aug-27-05 | | THE pawn: I usually do more blunders than normal moves in a game so... |
|
| Sep-04-05 | | kamiel: I really hate it when people have a 2 minute look with fritz at a highly complex game and claim that it is rubbish. Both morozevich and polgar are at least as strong as fritz so if you want to claim a refutation of a sac they both believe is correct you need more than a quick look with fritz. The lines fritz gave you are rubbish;
after 20...hxg5 21.hxg5 Bf8 22.Qf3 Kg7 white doesn't play the pointless Rac1? but 23.Qh3 and black is dead lost. Then on move 21 morozevich plays the brilliant move h5 and again you call it a blunder suggesting the horrible Nh3?? what is the N going to do there?
in your fritz line you give 21...hxg5 22.Bxg5 Rfe8? 23.hxg6 and you claim that this is -1.03, in reality black can resign as there is no way in stopping Qf3-h3. People really should stop taking computers for gods, they are very useful in analyses but you need to use your brain too especially in positions like this cause computers are still way too materialistic. |
|
Sep-04-05
 | | samvega: Fritz has a plus score against Morozevich. |
|
| Sep-04-05 | | kamiel: true, fritz has an amazing score of 1,5-0,5 vs morozevich. Both exhibition games. |
|
| Sep-05-05 | | who: Kasparov about Deep Blue "In certain positions it plays like god." |
|
| Sep-05-05 | | dac1990: <Kamiel> I agree with you when you say that more than a quick look with Fritz is necessary-- I took the precaution of waiting a longer time. Indeed, 21 ...hxg5 22.Bxg5 Rfe8? is terrible, but 22 ...f6 23.exf6 Bxf6 24.Qd2 Bxg5 25.Qxg5 Qd8 26.Qxg6 Qe7  -- and White still has to prove his point. Judit should have taken the chance, instead of 21 ...Qd8, which hands the advantage to white. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | kamiel: True, I'm not sure yet if black survives this way as there are some complex variations (maybe even 22.hxg6) but it's clearly a better try than Qd8. Also I think 21.Qf3 with the idea of Qh3 and only then h5 is winning easily. So 21.h5 is probably not optimal either, except if moro planned a killer we haven't found yet after 21. ... hxg5. I'll have a better look at it tonight. <who> First of all fritz is not equal to deep blue. Second, the quote you give is incomplete, it goes "there were some positions the computer played like God and some like a 2200" And third, there's also a difference between playing and analysing, let a 2200 correspondence player play a correspondence game against fritz and he will win everytime cause he can analyse much deeper. If you use fritz to analyse you should take it by the hand and guide it trough it's own variations to double check, which you clearly didn't do leading to lines full of blunders |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | who: Fritz vs Deep Blue is anyone's guess. They both did well against Kasparov and Fritz continues to do so against the world's elite - which is good enough for me.
I would assume Kasparov thought the more tactical the situation the better a computer is at playing it, and this is a tactical situation. The proof lies in the game he won against Fritz (positional) - for instance. Though I don't think the point needs proving. In this case, it seems you are right that on move 20 Fritz misjudged the position (though to be honest it doesn't take it long to figure this out - I, however, was on my way out at the time) but on move 21 it judges correctly. As with all such things the longer the line the more likely there is to be a mistake later on, but if the move it is thinking about is correct then that's something noteworthy. When all is said and done I think that the fact that Polgar and Moro had a mutual blunder is interesting and important - albeit not as much as if it had been two in a row. And finally, grow up. In a friendly forum why are you being belligerent - "I really hate". You talk about the "brilliant" 21.h5 and no one is on your case. |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | acirce: <kamiel> Thanks for your posts, highly needed on a place like this. |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | who: <acirce> what happened to the good old days when the vast majority of your posts were good, deep analysis of positions? These days the majority of your kibbitzes are just getting involved in one argument or another. I truly miss the days when acirce and honza dominated the site with extensive analysis of various complicated positions. |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | iron maiden: You might say that his posts have changed with the times. |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | kamiel: <acirce> thanks
<who> I don't want to polute this thread with arguments, but I'll have to react anyway I guess. 1) In MY opinion (feel free to disagree) kasparov played far below his usual level in both the deep blue match and the x3d fritz match. Blundering very bad in his last game against deep blue and in his second game against x3d fritz 2)You are right of course that the some positions kasparov was talking about are tactical positions; but not all tactical positions! It is common knowledge that computers misevaluate sacrifices if the computer can't calculate the lines far enough to see that they will regain the material. This is such a case as white sacrifices a piece for a long term attack on the weak black king but white doesn't gain the material back within the search dept of the computer. This is the same reason why computers often blunder by accepting rook sacrifices on a8 or h8 with their knight because they can't see far enough to figure out that they are gonna lose the knight in the end. 3)the fact that fritz plays the better move 21. ... hxg5 without having a clue why isn't noteworthy in my opinion as any 1400 player would also play hxg5 as it is the obvious move. 4) This is not a case of mutual blunders, as 21.h5 is not a blunder (see analysis in note below). 5) I'm sorry if I offended you by saying "I really hate ..." but it's just a fact that I hate it when people make fun of masters without proper analysis but just a superficial look with fritz. You see it all the time too on live broadcasts where there is always some guy who is making fun of the gms cause their fritz plays a move that supposedly is 0,23 points better. 6) Yes I do believe the move 21.h5 is brilliant. Even if it is possible that it is not correct (I think it is correct see analysis in note below) the fact remains that the idea behind it is brilliant. And last, I feel no need to continue this argument, so if you want to have the last word, be my guest. I will not react to it anymore as I really prefer to limit myself to analysis of the game itself, thank you. |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | kamiel: <dac1990> As said I had another look at the line you gave and I think white can improve with 21.h5!? hxg5 22.Bxg5 f6 23.exf6 Bxf6 and now not 24. Qd2 but 24.Nxf6 Nxf6 25.Rc1!?, I analysed some crucial variations starting from this position and all the lines I could come up with end with a winning advantage for white. But I know the saying "long analysis, wrong analysis" and I don't doubt that there is room for improvement but my feeling tells me that whites attack is just too much to handle for black. I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at it and suggest improvements. (you can copy paste game pgn in fritz) [Event "?"]
[Site "MyTown"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "analysis"]
[Black "morozevich-polgar"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "kamiel"]
[PlyCount "53"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6 4. O-O Nge7 5. c3 a6 6. Ba4 b5 7. Bc2 d5 8. e5 d4 9. Be4 Bb7 10. cxd4 cxd4 11. d3 Qb6 12. Re1 Rc8 13. a3 h6 14. h4 g6 15. Bf4 Bg7 16. Nbd2 O-O 17. Nf1 Rfe8 18. N1h2 Kh8 19. Ng4 Ng8 20. Ng5 Rf8 21. h5 hxg5 22. Bxg5 f6 23. exf6 Bxf6 24. Nxf6 Nxf6 25. Rc1 Nxe4 (25... b4 26. hxg6 Qa5 (26... Kg7 27. Qf3 Ne5 28. Qf4 Neg4 29. Bxb7 Qxb7 30. f3 $18) 27. Bh6 Rg8 28. Qf3 Nxe4 29. Qf7 Qc7 30. Rxe4 Qxf7 31. gxf7 Rg7 32. f8=Q+ Rxf8 33. Rxe6 $18) (25... gxh5 26. Bxf6+ Rxf6 27. Qxh5+ Kg8 28. Rc5 Kf8 29. Rd5 $1 Nb8 (29... Rd8 30. Rg5) 30. Rg5 Bxe4 31. Qh8+ Ke7 32. Qxc8 Rg6 (32... Bg6 33. Rc1 Qd6 34. Rc7+ Nd7 35. Ra7 Bf7 36. Rg7 e5 37. Rh7 $18 nice zugzwang) 33. Rc5 Bc6 34. Rec1 Rxg2+ 35. Kf1) (25... e5 26. hxg6 Kg7 27. Qf3 Nxe4 (27... Qc7 28. Bxc6 Bxc6 29. Qh3 Rh8 (29... Kxg6 30. Qh6+ Kf5 31. Bf4 exf4 32. Rc5+ Bd5 33. Rxc7 Rh8 34. Re5+ $1 $18) 30. Qe6 $18) 28. Qxe4 Qc7 29. Qh4 Kxg6 30. Qh6+ Kf7 31. Bf6 $18) (25... Kg7 26. Bxg6 Ne7 27. Rxc8 Bxc8 (27... Nxc8 28. Qc1 Ng4 29. Be4 Kh8 30. Bxb7 Qxb7 31. f3 $18) 28. Qc1 $18) (25... Ne7 26. Qf3 Nh7 (26... Ned5 27. Rxc8 Bxc8 28. hxg6 Kg7 29. Qg3 Nxe4 30. Rxe4 $18) 27. Rxc8 Bxc8 28. Bf4 e5 29. Bxe5+ Nf6 30. Bxg6 Nxg6 31. hxg6 $18) 26. Rxe4 Qc7 (26... Rf5 27. Qg4 $18) 27. Rxe6 $18 1-0 |
|
| Sep-08-05 | | who: What are all those $ signs? |
|
| Sep-08-05 | | who: As for Fritz not having a clue why, it figures it out fairly quickly. I am not sure if that is so different from me saying that when you take a rook which I leave hanging that that's not a good move because you can't really see how to force checkmate from here, whereas if someone could then the move becomes much more powerful. If fritz finds the right move when the position comes up - in say 2 minutes, that seems reasonable. |
|
| Sep-08-05 | | who: and finally <5) I'm sorry if I offended you by saying "I really hate ..." but it's just a fact that I hate it > doesn't necessarily mean it's right. |
|
| Sep-08-05 | | kamiel: 1)Those dollar signs are part of the pgn standard, I posted it this way so you can paste the game into your computer program. They replace signs like  .2)Your second comment I don't understand, as fritz figures nothing out. It thinks black has the better position while it is clear that white at least has some advantage and probably is outright winning. 3) What is not right? |
|
| Sep-08-05 | | who: Fritz thinks 25...e5 is better - I don't mean to go on about Fritz again. |
|
| Sep-09-05 | | kamiel: I did cover 25. ... e5 in the lines I gave above; it loses. I'll paste that specific part here again: 25... e5 26. hxg6 Kg7 27. Qf3 Nxe4 (27... Qc7 28. Bxc6 Bxc6 29. Qh3 Rh8 (29... Kxg6 30. Qh6+ Kf5 31. Bf4 exf4 32. Rc5+ Bd5 33. Rxc7 Rh8 34. Re5+ ) 30. Qe6 ) 28. Qxe4 Qc7 29. Qh4 Kxg6 30. Qh6+ Kf7 31. Bf6 |
|
| Sep-09-05 | | who: Oh I see. Sorry I didn't realize that some of the variations were posted at the end. |
|
| Dec-19-05 | | Neurotic Patzer: Too bad Polgar made that blunder at the end. If I was Moro I would have been pissed off. |
|
| Apr-05-09 | | WhiteRook48: I would have been crazed that people resign right after making a move. |
|
Apr-07-18
 | | HeMateMe: sharp attack. Looks like white finishes with 30. RxR+ and 31.Q-g8+. Judit really had trouble with Moro
<Classical games: Alexander Morozevich beat Judit Polgar 3 to 0, with 2 draws.
Including rapid/exhibition games: Alexander Morozevich beat Judit Polgar 11 to 0, with 6 draws.> She never beat Kramnik but I'm surprised that Polgar had so much trouble with Moro, who was inconsistent. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
