hiarcs 12.1 mp 22ply [+0.06] 30....b6 31.Bd4 c5 32.Qc4 Rd8 33.Bc3 Rd6 34.Ne4 Rd7 35.Qxd5+

click for larger view

I, for one, really appreciate all the work you have contributed to this and all the games you have played in at <chessgames.com>. Thank you and please contiue with your fine work.

You still playing at the towering 1400 level you said you were two and a half years ago?

I just bet you are.

I bet you aren't even a tiny bit stronger in real chess now, after wasting the last two and a half years of your life "learning" about chess by staring blankly at lines spit out by your chess engine.

I betcha.

Also, I said this thread was a disgrace- not you in particular.

But since you just saw fit to ridicule me in public, then here it is back at you.

"Why would you bother" going through <kwid's> "analysis"?

????

Only by carefully "learning" from <kwid's> 50+ move fantasy "games" can you understand properly that the <Najdorf> is BUSTED.

We can look forward to a powerful new opening, no doubt- The <Kwid> opening.

Here's how it goes:

You turn your computer on and go to sleep for 24 hours.

Then you wake up and publish the line.

<kingscrusher> I agree with <truefriends>, posting the analysis on YT wasn't exactly a nice thing to do.

But more importantly, in your video you present a slightly one-sided point of view. Of course I agree h5 created a weakness and GMMU took advantage of that but we prevented any e4+f4 ideas for White and threatened h4 in some lines. This is how chess works and you know that. Should people stop playing Shirov-Shabalov gambit or Keres attack because it creates a weakness?

I'm especially annoyed with the statement that the World Team is being held to a draw because it may imply that we had a winning position which is completely untrue. I don't know why forcing White to take a draw by repetition would be a bad result, especially considering the fact that the position was practically drawn after exd4.

About engine use: being a weak player myself, I can't really disagree with Rybka when analyzing the position. But you can. Did you try to carefully explain on the main forum why h5 should not be played? I'm sure the Team would have taken your opinion into consideration. But you didn't even try and suddenly now you're seeing that h5 was a bad move...

The argument has been made that the top CC players have to use use long lines. But that's just one player. A team should operate differently than just one player. I think we are wasting our time with long lines. We should return to the forum system to produce rock solid short lines.>

Forumes worked just fine even if only a few did hard works in em we was able to succed as a team in ouer performance we found winning lines using that kind of methods.

When it comes to long lines they was facta the main proceduers that made us overcome engine horizont problems and gave us several winning continutations...I don't agree at all long lines as a base of further dicussion has been used much lately.To the contradery what i've seen is infinity engine analysis lines that in most cases is worth zero..I fear that's the main reason the team seems unable to win and spews out continutation that is easy meet by any opponent

Using long lines is a good base to look for improvements in the game both engines and human overlooks given they have a acceptable level and not just rubbish posted to waste time on the team effort to find the really good moves.

A combination of forums longs good lines as base for further analysis to improve em or reject em is the way to go..Each forum can as before get one variation and keep on working on that to make it as good as possible broad and deep not excluding any of em..We have the manpower and engine power, this is not rocket science. It's incredible why we still poundering dicussing this issue at all, that should be fairly easy to understand what works best.

If anything we dont need it's short infinity engine analysis in the open forum unless it's a clear tactical point showing a win or lose scenario..

Let's get back to decent analysis and stop posting 30 ply infinity analysis in main forum.. For those loving such nonsens let em have a own forum where they can dance around and enjoy engine eval numbers and infinity analysis nonsens. This will be my lost post about the issue there is said enough about it either we understand or not...

I wasn't doing the evolution series at the time of the move being played. In fact though, I recognised in the previous game that h5 was very useful as a restraining mechanism in the Sicilian we had. But there for me it fitted in more with not being blown away within 20 moves as the Sicilian is a much sharper position than the opening of this game.

The emphasis of the video was actually part of an "Evolution of chess style" series. Please could you review the previous videos at youtube.com/kingscrusher to see the video in context. As I say most of the analysis was from my own Rybka on not that fast a machine and within the space of 30 minutes. I asked one question and one question only. I don't think Umansky who heads the ICCF rating list does fall into tactical traps that easily. When he played Ra3 I really don't think he would like it to be trapped there and not come into the game.

<Why would you bother" going through <kwid's> "analysis"?>

Have you?

Oh, I'm sorry if I missed your name in last year's roster for the United States Chess Championship. My bad. I'm sure GM Yury Shulman could use a few of your handy tips about chess.

So the answer to my question is in fact that you are not stronger than <1400> still after two and a half years "playing chess" in these Centaur games?

As I suspected. And how could you be stronger?

Carry on all. Enjoy "learning" how to play chess by voting for Rybka moves.>

Nice post. I agree with most of what you say. However I wonder how The Team can work on long lines? Say a 20 ply line is posted (and recently this would be considered a short line). Taking that as a baseline, how much time do you think it would take to slide it? More than 3 days I'll bet. This is impractical in this format.

From your video, one can learn that the Team followed Rybka and missed the importance of g5 weakness. It's only partially true.

In fact, we were aware of the fact that g5 might be an issue later on, but it's the price we were willing to play to have winning chances. I don't know if you're aware that Rybka suggested f4 for White as a response to h5, resulting in extremely interesting tactical game. Of course GM Umansky foresaw the danger, avoided the f4 push and expertly took advantage of g5 weakness by playing Ra1-a3 and Ne3. In short, we attacked (gambled if you wish), GMMU parried our threats and the result is a draw.

In the early games, we did develop some long lines but they were generally not taken seriously. Most of us agreed with Botvinnik that all long lines are just wrong. We can run out a variation to get a feeling for direction but we will never play that way. A baseline of around 10 ply or so can be verified in 3 days. I believe that's where most of The Team's resources should be directed.>

Well keeep up that view continue to speak out for it do it and the team will soon face it's first defeat..All winning lines the team has ever found, as long i've been part of the team has come as a result of long lines worked further on in forums.

click for larger view

Analysis by Fritz 11: d=28

1. = (0.00): 35...Qe4 36.Qxg5 Bd8 37.Qxh5 Qxe2 38.Be3 Re4 39.Qg4 Rxa4 40.Qe6+ Kh7 41.Qf5+ Kg8 42.Qe6+ 2. = (0.00): 35...gxf4 36.Rxf4 Rd8 37.Qf7+ Kh7 38.Be3 Rd1+ 39.Kg2 Rd5 40.Bd4 Rxd4 41.Rxd4 Qxd4 42.Qxh5+ Kg8 43.Qe8+ Kh7 44.Qh5+ 3. = (0.00): 35...Qxe2 36.fxg5 Qxf3 37.Qxe8+ Kh7 38.Be3 Qd1+ 39.Kg2 Qg4+ 40.Kf1 Bd6 41.Qf7 Qd1+ 42.Kg2 Qg4+ 43.Kf1 4. (0.30): 35...Qe6 36.Qxe6+ Rxe6 37.fxg5 Re5 38.b4 axb4 39.Bxb4 Re4 40.Rf8+ Kh7 41.Bc3 Rg4+ 42.Kf1 Rc4 43.Rf3 Kg6 5. (0.34): 35...Re6 36.fxe5 Rxg6 37.Rf8+ Kh7 38.Re8 gxh4+ 39.Kh2 Rf6 40.Be3 Kg6 41.Kh3 Rf7 42.Kxh4 Rd7 43.f4 Bd8+

<kormier:>

Fritz like Rybka apparently doesn't discriminate between 0.00's

The discussion will be lively at move 35

As is well known, I prefer 35...gxf4 36. Rxf4 Qxe2

38...Re7 is faster than 38...Qe7, but 38..Qe7 leads to us giving the perpetual checks not GMMU.