|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 837 OF 838 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-07-07 | | zanshin: <kutz> I too admire your perseverance in analyzing the GMYS game to this extent. Obviously most people will be interested in how closely we or GMYS followed the chess engines (not just Rybka). However, I feel that much can also be learned by analyzing how the computer recommendations matched those of the human moves as the game progressed from the opening tables, to the tactical middle game, to the positional endgame and tablebases. Case studies such as this may be useful in testing the prediction that engines are best (and usually in agreement) in tactical situations, and quite poor in those that are positional or designed to "Play the man and not the board". Good job! |
|
| Sep-07-07 | | RandomVisitor: <kutztown46><Would you prefer that I send you the Word file that I carved into four sections?>You can do that. My address is RandomVisitor at Verizon dot net. |
|
Sep-09-07
 | | Nite4k: < kutztown46: Part 1:
After the conclusion of the GMYS game, I replayed the game using Fritz 9, starting at move 10. For each move, I put Fritz on infinite analysis and let it run overnight. In each case I have shown the move actually played along with its rating after the overnight run.> Thanks, <Kutztown46>, for all your hard work in following through with your post-game analysis of whether the World played the top Fritz 9 recommended move. It shows how well the World played without having to always rely on Fritz's top choice when we won by making only 65% of Fritz's first choices. That means 35% of the time the World relied on other computer or human analyses such as prefering the 10th best Fritz move 29... Qe6 that lured Yury into the losing 30. Re1 (2nd choice to 30. Qxc4). <Kutztown46>, what is Black's best Fritz 9 response to White's 30. Qxc4? Would the World still have maintained its slight advantage? |
|
Sep-09-07
 | | kutztown46: <Nite4k>:
The line given was 30. Qxc4 dxc4 31. Bd5 Qxd5 32. Rxd5 Rc8 33. e6 Kf8 34. Bc3 Nc1 35. Bd2 Nd3 36. Bg5 Re8 (-.42/21). |
|
| Sep-09-07 | | mckmck: kutztown46: I just revisited this page because it kitbitzed a lot. I saw the scores and your (74 days) of effort. Great Job. |
|
| Sep-13-07 | | The Chess Express: <kutztown46> Indeed, very interesting. |
|
| Nov-28-07 | | Confuse: Its worth noting that the pages of analysis against current GM JT have already amounted to past the amount for Mr. Shulman. Although this is no gauge to who is more skilled, but it must be said that the players currently against JT are putting up a herculian effort. Bravo. |
|
Dec-03-07
 | | MarkThornton: 5 months after the end of this game, I got to repeat the variation in an OTB game. My opponent was Chris Ross, the British Visually Impaired Champion. The game certainly upholds the reputation of 12...f5!?. Unfortunately, I displayed poor endgame technique and failed to convert my extra pawn. Despite this, it gave me great pleasure to play this variation in an OTB game! [Event "League Match"]
[Site "Cambridge, England"]
[Date "2007.12.03"]
[Opening "QID"]
[Board "1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Ross, Chris N"]
[Black "Thornton, Mark H"]
[WhiteElo "2144"]
[BlackElo "2235"]
1.d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. b3 Be7 6. Bd2 Be7 7. Bg2 c6 8. 0-0 d5 9. Ne5 Nfd7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. Bc3 0-0 12. Nd2 f5 13. Rc1 Rc8 14. Bb2 Bd6 15. Nf3 Qe7 16. Qd2 Nf6 17. Ne5 Ne4 18. Qe3 c5 19. f3 Nf6 20. Qd2 cxd4 21. Bxd4 Bxe5 22. Bxe5 dxc4 23. Rfd1 Rfd8 24. Qb2 Rxd1+ 25. Rxd1 Nd5 26. bxc4 Ne3 27. Rc1 Nxc4 28. Qd4 Nxe5 29. Rxc8+ Bxc8 30. Qxe5 Qc5+ 31. Qxc5 bxc5 32. Kf2 Kf7 33. f4 Ke7 34. Ke3 Kd6 35. Kd2 Ba6 36. e4 BB7 37. e5+ Kc7 38. Kf1 Bd5 39. a3 Kb6 40. Kc3 Ba2 41. Kb2 Bd5 42. Kc3 Ba2 43. Kb2 Bd5 1/2-1/2 |
|
Dec-03-07
 | | WannaBe: Anybody having problems viewing this game using the new viewer? I've rebooted my computer, and I still can't see the moves... |
|
| Dec-03-07 | | Resignation Trap: <WannaBe> The moves from Chess Viewer Deluxe cannot be seen on my computer, either. |
|
Dec-03-07
| | WannaBe: <Resignation Trap> Thanks bud! I'll leave CG.com a note in the forum. =) |
|
Dec-03-07
 | | chancho: Shulman's Bishop pair was practically ineffective for the whole of this game. That must have been frustrating for him. |
|
Dec-04-07
| | MarkThornton: I made a few typos in my original game score. Thanks to <zanshin> for pointing this out. Here is a corrected version: [Event "League Match"]
[Site "Cambridge, England"]
[Date "2007.12.03"]
[Board "1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Ross, Chris N"]
[Black "Thornton, Mark H"]
[WhiteElo "2144"]
[BlackElo "2235"]
1.d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. b3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Be7 7. Bg2 c6 8. 0-0 d5 9. Ne5 Nfd7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. Bc3 0-0 12. Nd2 f5 By transposition, we arrive at Y Shulman vs The World, 2007 13. Rc1 Rc8 14. Bb2 Bd6 15. Nf3 Qe7 16. Qd2 Nf6 17. Ne5 Ne4 18. Qe3 c5 19. f3 Nf6 Up to this point, we are following Kasimdzhanov vs Gelfand, 2007 20. Qd2 cxd4 21. Bxd4 Bxe5 22. Bxe5 dxc4 23. Rfd1 Rfd8 24. Qb2 Rxd1+ 25. Rxd1 Nd5 26. bxc4 Ne3 27. Rc1 Nxc4 28. Qd4 Nxe5 29. Rxc8+ Bxc8 30. Qxe5 Qc5+ 31. Qxc5 bxc5 
click for larger viewI was confident that I would win this endgame. But things didn't turn out that way. 32. Kf2 Kf7 33. f4 Ke7 34. Ke3 Kd6 35. Kd2 Ba6 36. e4 Bb7 37. e5+ Kc7 38. Bf1 Bd5 39. a3 Kb6 40. Kc3 Ba2 41. Kb2 Bd5 42. Kc3 Ba2 43. Kb2 Bd5 1/2-1/2 A disappointing result, but <12...f5!?> passed another test with flying colours! |
|
| Jan-09-08 | | D.Observer: Hadn't Shulman try to continue with Qf7? |
|
Jan-09-08
| | whiteshark: <D.Observer> Look thru the pages to find the answer. |
|
| Jan-29-08 | | jovack: That was a pretty tight finish.
Tight holding the meanings: close and excellent. |
|
| Mar-12-08 | | AgentRgent: <MarkThornton> I suspect you may already have found this, but it looks like you missed a win in your game vs. Ross with 24...Rxd1+. It looks like 24...Qc5+ wins (e.g. 24...Qc5+ 25. Kf1 Rxd1+ 26. Rxd1 c3! and White must lose the e5 Bishop 27. Bxc3 Qxc3 28. Qxc3 Rxc3). |
|
Mar-12-08
| | MarkThornton: <AgentRgent: <MarkThornton> I suspect you may already have found this, but it looks like you missed a win in your game vs. Ross with 24...Rxd1+. It looks like 24...Qc5+ wins (e.g. 24...Qc5+ 25. Kf1 Rxd1+ 26. Rxd1 c3! and White must lose the e5 Bishop 27. Bxc3 Qxc3 28. Qxc3 Rxc3).> Thanks for this. You're not alone in pointing this out to me! Cheers, Mark |
|
| Mar-17-08 | | notyetagm: Corrected PGN:
[Event "League Match"]
[Site "Cambridge, England"]
[Date "2007.12.03"]
[Board "1"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Ross, Chris N"]
[Black "Thornton, Mark H"]
[WhiteElo "2144"]
[BlackElo "2235"]
1.d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. b3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Be7 7. Bg2 c6 8. 0-0 d5 9. Ne5 Nfd7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. Bc3 0-0 12. Nd2 f5
13. Rc1 Rc8 14. Bb2 Bd6 15. Nf3 Qe7 16. Qd2 Nf6 17. Ne5 Ne4 18. Qe3 c5 19. f3 Nf6 20. Qd2 cxd4 21. Bxd4 Bxe5 22. Bxe5 dxc4 23. Rfd1 Rfd8 24. Qb2 Rxd1+ 25. Rxd1 Nd5 26. bxc4 Ne3 27. Rc1 Nxc4 28. Qd4 Nxe5 29. Rxc8+ Bxc8 30. Qxe5 Qc5+ 31. Qxc5 bxc5 32. Kf2 Kf7 33. f4 Ke7 34. Ke3 Kd6 35. Kd2 Ba6 36. e4 Bb7 37. e5+ Kc7 38. Bf1 Bd5 39. a3 Kb6 40. Kc3 Ba2 41. Kb2 Bd5 42. Kc3 Ba2 43. Kb2 Bd5 1/2-1/2 |
|
| Mar-17-08 | | notyetagm: <AgentRgent: <MarkThornton> I suspect you may already have found this, but it looks like you missed a win in your game vs. Ross with 24...Rxd1+. It looks like 24...Qc5+ wins> (VAR) Position after 24 ... ♕e7-c5+! 
click for larger view<(e.g. 24...Qc5+ 25. Kf1 Rxd1+ 26. Rxd1 c3!> 
click for larger view<and White must lose the e5 Bishop 27. Bxc3 Qxc3 28. Qxc3 Rxc3).> 
click for larger viewA very instructive tactical sequence. 24 ... ♕e7-c5+! gains control of the c3-square <WITH TEMPO> to support an upcoming <INTERFERENCE> on that square. 25 ... ♖d8x♖d1+ 26 ♖c1x♖d1 <DEFLECTS> the White c1-rook from the defense of the c3-square. And then 26 ... c4-c3! closes off the <LINE OF LIFE-GIVING FORCE> from the White b2-queen to the <LOOSE> White e5-bishop, <GAINING TIME> on the White b2-queen to boot (<INTERFERENCE>). Dr. Nunn says that <Loose Pieces Drop Off - LPDO>. Here the <LOOSE> White e5-bishop and the <EXPOSED> White g1-king are tactical warning indicators that the White e5-bishop might be in trouble. This bishop does not drop off to a <QUEEN FORK WITH CHECK> but rather the exposed White king gives Black a <TEMPO> that he is able to use to create the conditions for the <INTERFERENCE> tactic. 24 ... ♕e7-c5+! is a great example of a <FORK> in which one tactical target is a <PIECE> (White g1-king) while the other tactical target is a <SQUARE> (c3-square). |
|
| Mar-19-08 | | black knight c6: Assuming notyetagm's first diagram with right, could someone please put me out of my misery and tell me what's so wrong with [24. ... Qc5+] 25. Bd4 ? I must be blind but I can't see how this simple move doesn't completely save white's position. Perhaps notyetagm's diagram is wrong? |
|
| Mar-19-08 | | Karpova: <black knight c6>
25.Bd4 fails to 25...c3 [see diagram]
click for larger viewe.g. 25.Bd4 c3 26.Bxc5 cxb2 27.Rxd8+ Rxd8 28.Rb1 bxc5 [see diagram]
click for larger view |
|
| Mar-19-08 | | black knight c6: Thanks Karpova, I'm pretty sure I looked at c3 again but I can't have looked nearly enough. Interesting combination for that game then! |
|
| Mar-29-08 | | notyetagm: <Karpova: <black knight c6>
25.Bd4 fails to 25...c3 [see diagram]
...
e.g. 25.Bd4 c3 26.Bxc5 cxb2 27.Rxd8+ Rxd8>
(VAR) Position after 27 ... ♖c8x♖d8
click for larger viewAnd now the problem is clear: White has two pieces (White c5-bishop, c1-rook) <EN PRISE> to Black pawns plus the Black b2-pawn is threatening to promote on both the b1- and c1-squares. |
|
| Jun-13-08 | | notyetagm: A great Black Queen's Indian win. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 837 OF 838 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
