< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Apr-15-13|| ||lost in space: <<polarmis:> <lost in space: In think nobody can explain the 50th move from Aronian.>
It's hard to resist giving Kramnik's explanation :) http://chess-news.ru/node/11625 (it's possible some of the transcription/translation of what Kramnik said isn't perfect, but it should give the gist!)>|
Well, I can at least undersdand the argumentation of Kramnik. I really tried hard to understand the complete game - together with a comp as I am not good enough without.
From my perspective the ending was complicated - very complicated long before move 50. But I had the impression that Arionian had an excelent understanding of the ending. Moves like 44. Ke5 are so hard to spot and it takes long to get it (at least for me).
The position after 40 moves was much less complicate compared to the posiiton 10 moves ago - after having done all the analyis before I quickly saw that h6 is a draw - without the help of a computer. So yes, I had the help of a computer but this is just to understand the deepnes of this game. And yes, it is easy to sit there having no pressure, knowing that at d=22 the evaluation is 0,00.
But: If I bloddy patzer are able to see that 50..h6 is a draw I think Arionian should see it in a second even when halfly sleeping.
Still I think it is a great game, but with a terrible blunder at the end.
|Apr-16-13|| ||Ulhumbrus: <lost in space: ...Well, I can at least undersdand the argumentation of Kramnik. I really tried hard to understand the complete game - together with a comp as I am not good enough without.|
> This game may have changed the theory of this opening variation. Aronian loses a tempo on moving a pawn in the opening by 8 a3?! whereupon after 10...f5!! White lacks a tempo needed to take advantage of the potential weakness of Black's e5 and e6, and instead White's d4 comes under attack.
|Apr-16-13|| ||Petrosianic: <lost in space>: <In think nobody can explain the 50th move from Aronian.> |
It's been explained numerous times. Aronian picked the move that would require White to spend the maximum time picking off his pawns. He must have thought that White's King would be too far away afterwards for it to matter that the king was closer after g6 than it would have been after h6. It very nearly was, as can be seen by the trap at Move 57.
<Even I bloody patzer saw that it is a mistake.>
If we're going to just GM moves by whether or not a patzer would play them, then I'm afraid we'll have to throw most of them out. You may not be grasping just how dangerous White's queenside pawns were.
We had this discussion before, but in Fischer-Spassky, Game 1, even a lot of patzers saw that Bxh2 was a bad move. But a lot of them didn't really understand why it was (they thought Fischer had overlooked g3, when in fact his error came several moves deeper into the line). g6 is certainly a counter-intuitive move that few patzers would have played, but I'll bet very few could give a rigorous explanation as to why it was wrong.
|Apr-16-13|| ||Eyal: <Aronian picked the move that would require White to spend the maximum time picking off his pawns.>|
The picking off itself takes three moves in both cases: Kg5-Kxh5-Kxg6 in the game, g6-Kxg5-Kxh6 if 50.h6. But in the former case it might seem that White is gaining time - especially if one thinks about it as a pawn race - because the black king ends up blocking his g-pawn. This is confirmed by what Kramnik himself said in that bit of interview quoted above by <polarmis>: <But g6... Actually, what's the idea? Levon also couldn't manage and got confused - he told me after the game that he couldn't calculate it to the end and played g6 with the idea that when I took the pawns the king would slow down the g-pawn.>
But as he goes on to say, <actually he'd miscalculated. It's true that it slows down the g-pawn, but the king is just in time to return to the other flank.> A line which illustrates this more "dramatically" than the one actually played in the game is 54.c4 (instead of a6 – to prevent Bd5) Bh7 55.a6 Be4 56.c5 Ke7! (not 56…Ke6? 57.Kc5!) 57.c6 Kd6 58.a7 Bxc6+ getting control of a8.
|Apr-16-13|| ||Petrosianic: <But in the former case it might seem that White is gaining time - especially if one thinks about it as a pawn race ->|
Exactly. I may not have explained it fully, but after g6, it takes White an extra move to pick off the pawns AND clear the way for his g pawn to start moving than it would have if he'd played h6.
The difference is that after g6, Black's king is closer to the action than it would have been after h6. But if it's too far away in both variations, this doesn't matter. The mistake is that in fact Black's King <wasn't> too far away after g6. But it takes a lot of calculation to see that. No patzers just intuitively knew it.
|Apr-16-13|| ||AylerKupp: <<lost in space> Position after 43....Kd7 44.c8=Q+ Kxc8 45.h6 Bg8 45.Kf5 gxh6 47.gxh6 and the game is a clear draw>
click for larger view
It is indeed a draw after 47...Kd7 as you indicated but I thought that after 47...Bh7+ that it might not be. White has 2 options:
(1) Keep the king on the k-side and force Black to give up his bishop to prevent the h-pawn from queening. But I then thought that Black had enough time to pick off White's q-side pawns. But after 47...Bh7+ 48.Kf6 Kd7 49.Kg7 Bb1 (or any other bishop move along the b1-h7 diagonal other than 49...Bg6) 50.h7 Bxh7 51.Kxh7 and Black mates in 18 moves per the 6-piece Nalimov tablebases.
(2) Move the king to the q-side and protect his q-side pawns. This works out better after 47...Bh7+ 48.Ke6 Kc7 49.Kd5 Bb1 50.Kd4 Kc6 51.h7 Bxh7 52.c4 (the key move!). And now if either 52...bxc4 53.Kxc4 or 52...b4 53.axb4 it's a draw per the 6-piece Nalimov tablebases.
Black's problem is that after 52.c4 bxc4 53.Kxc4 his bishop does not control the a-pawn's queening square, so even if White lost his a-pawn the position would still be a draw. And after 52.c4 b4 53.axb4 a3 54.Kc3 White's king can get to a1 so even if White loses both his remaining pawns the position is still a draw.
I want to let you (and others) know about a nifty program developed by Pedro Pérez Romero called FinalGen. It is basically a tablebase generator for positions consisting of kings, one piece for each side, and any number of pawns. So it could theoretically determine the results of positions containing up to 20 pieces; two kings, two pieces, and 8 pawns per side.
I said "theoretically" because there are positions that meet its basic requirements but are too complex for the program to analyze. Other positions can theoretically be analyzed but are not practically possible because they will require weeks of analysis and 10s of TB of storage. It all depends on the mobility of the pawns; if the pawns are far advanced or blocked then the number of possible pawn moves is much smaller than if the pawns were near their original squares and had full freedom of movement. Still, for many positions the program can come up with definitive results beyond the capabilities of the 6-piece Nalimov tablebases and 7-piece Lomonosov tablebases.
These were the results of its analysis of the position after 47.gxh6. It took FinalGen 00:29:23 minutes and required about 28 GB of disk space (I added the move numbers myself):
47...b4 White wins in 28
47...Bd5 White wins in 3
47...Be6+ White wins in 3
47...Bf7 White wins in 3
Of course, even I as Black would not play any of the last 3 moves but it does show that the program is thorough. But for the other moves you can then ask the program to display the lines that make up the principal variation for each move, and you can explore the side variations.
You can download FinalGen from here: http://www.mtu-media.com/finalgen/h.... And best of all, at least for the moment, it's free.
|Apr-16-13|| ||AylerKupp: <<Petrosianic> ... even a lot of patzers saw that Bxh2 was a bad move. But a lot of them didn't really understand why it was (they thought Fischer had overlooked g3, when in fact his error came several moves deeper into the line).>|
No, Fischer's mistake was 29...Bxh2, not later, and his game was lost against best play by Spassky from that point forward. See my analysis (with a "little help" from Rybka 4.1) starting at Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 and continuing through most of p.17. If you can find any errors in it or other lines that might allow Fischer to salvage a draw after his mistake, please let me know. I would really like to see them.
But, of course, Fischer didn't overlook 30.g3, he just miscalculated and thought that he could get away with 29...Bxh2. And it wasn't easy to show that he couldn't!
|Apr-16-13|| ||Petrosianic: Maybe I wasn't clear. When I say his error was several moves deeper, that's not what I meant.
I meant that there were weak players who thought that the problem with Bxh2 was that Fischer had simply overlooked 30. g3. No, he didn't overlook that. The error was several moves deeper, in the sense that Fischer was probably looking at 30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 h4 32. Kf3 h3 33. Kg4 Bf1 34. Kxh3 Bxf2 35. Bd2!!, and the Black Bishop is still trapped.|
So, Fischer's mistake wasn't in overlooking 30. g3, it was in overlooking 35. Bd2. So, they were right in saying that Bxh2 was weak, but didn't really understand why it was.
In the same sense, there may be patzers who don't like Aronian's g6 in this game, but I doubt that many of them really understand WHY it's wrong. They might have made a lucky guess that it was, but that's not the same as understanding the position.
|Apr-16-13|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic:
So, Fischer's mistake wasn't in overlooking 30. g3, it was in overlooking 35. Bd2.>
It wasn’t a mistake.
Fischer had already anticipated winning games
He threw the game to Spassky not wanting him to go winless in a legendary match.
(Hey, if were gonna do Fischer’s thinking for him, why not?)
|Apr-17-13|| ||AylerKupp: <diceman> I hardly think that Fischer had any sympathy for any opponent over the board, it was just not his nature. After all he once supposedly said " Chess is war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent's mind."|
No, instead I think he played the Steinitz gambit. Fischer had studied Steinitz's game thoroughly. And in both his World Championship matches against Tchigorin, Steinitz lost the first game of their match, lulling his opponent into a false sense of security, and then went on to win the match.
But Fischer found an improvement in the Steinitz Gambit; he lost the first two games of the match! And now, Spassky, his mind thoroughly crushed, went on to lose the match. :-)
|Apr-17-13|| ||Eyal: Guys – sorry if I'm sounding like the CG police, but all of this really belongs to Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 or the Fischer page, not here. Not that there's anything terrible about a few off-topic posts, of course, but we all know how these Bxh2-related arguments can go on and on - as they already have dozens (if not hundreds) of times.|
|Apr-17-13|| ||AylerKupp: <Eyal> You're quite right, sorry about that.|
|Apr-18-13|| ||lost in space: <<Ulhumbrus:> <lost in space: ...Well, I can at least undersdand the argumentation of Kramnik. I really tried hard to understand the complete game - together with a comp as I am not good enough without.
> This game may have changed the theory of this opening variation. Aronian loses a tempo on moving a pawn in the opening by 8 a3?! whereupon after 10...f5!! White lacks a tempo needed to take advantage of the potential weakness of Black's e5 and e6, and instead White's d4 comes under attack>|
I fully agree.
|Apr-18-13|| ||lost in space: <<AylerKupp:> <<lost in space> Position after 43....Kd7 44.c8=Q+ Kxc8 45.h6 Bg8 45.Kf5 gxh6 47.gxh6 and the game is a clear draw>
(Snip) It is indeed a draw after 47...Kd7 as you indicated but I thought that after 47...Bh7+ that it might not be. (snip)>|
Intersting. Will check it and come back with my findings.
|Apr-29-13|| ||lost in space: <<AylerKupp:> <<lost in space> Position after 43....Kd7 44.c8=Q+ Kxc8 45.h6 Bg8 45.Kf5 gxh6 47.gxh6 and the game is a clear draw>|
click for larger view
It is indeed a draw after 47...Kd7 as you indicated but I thought that after 47...Bh7+ that it might not be (snip)
I had a look to this position with shredder 12
click for larger view
Of course no final proof, but on d=40 shredder gives 0,00 after
48. Ke6 and 48. Ke5.
I am starting to slide forward along the line 48. Ke6, from my perspective the clearest way to draw the game.
|Nov-12-13|| ||Conrad93: Bxh2 actually draws the game in the Fischer-Spassky match. It wasn't a blunder.|
|Nov-12-13|| ||mrbasso: It was a blunder. :)|
|Nov-13-13|| ||Conrad93: No, it wasn't. I found the draw rather easily.|
|Nov-13-13|| ||Conrad93: You should probably check out the analysis.|
|Nov-29-13|| ||maxi: <Conrad93> There has been more than enough written on the move Fischer omitted. If after that with perfect computer play there is still a draw it is irrelevant. The drawing lines are hard to find over the board and Fischer, matter-of-factly, missed them. You simply should not makes moves that make it almost impossible for you to even draw, much less win. If you don't think such moves are a blunder maybe you should rethink your approach to chess.|
|Jan-29-14|| ||Ferro: "Big fish"|
|Jan-29-14|| ||AylerKupp: Aaah, I see that <Conrad93> is still up to his silly statements in his attempts to gain attention. He claimed back on Dec-26-12 (see Spassky vs Fischer, 1972) that people should ignore my analysis (see Spassky vs Fischer, 1972) because his engine determined that it was an easy draw in all lines. Of course, he is apparently still unable to indicate what engine he used, the engines search depths, and post any of the "drawing" lines.|
Ha, ha, ha, ha. What an insecure clown. Apparently he still doesn't realize how foolish he looks when he makes these posts and how everyone is always laughing at him. He doesn't even seem to know that he was posting his comments on the Aronian vs Kramnik, 2013 page and not on the Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 page.
|Jan-29-14|| ||Travis Bickle: What a great game! Looks like something Fischer would have tried sacking his last piece to try & promote a pawn, although Fischer's plan would have worked.|
|Jan-29-14|| ||Richard Taylor: < Conrad93: Bxh2 actually draws the game in the Fischer-Spassky match. It wasn't a blunder. >|
Even if it was a draw Fischer didn't find it and I don't know if he admitted after the game that he miscalculated but he clearly missed Spassky's defence.
So, all players, no matter their level either make "blunders" (outright "howlers") or they miscalculate. This is caused by the tension of playing real chess.
I overlooked a mate in one in the NZ Correspondence Championship in 1985 I think it was. Why?
If I knew that and we all knew why we all made all out "inexplicable" bad moves or "blunders" we would all be about 200 points or more rating points higher than what we are or were!
I think Fischer simply overlooked some quite basic ideas. He was very confidant. He was overconfident: he had the arrogance of his incipient madness.
|Feb-24-14|| ||offramp: Hey kids!! Why not open up a discussion about Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 right here?!? We've got the sets and the songs and the dances. We don't need those stupid adults!!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·