chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Krum Georgiev vs Francois Vareille
Val Thorens op (1998)
Formation: King's Indian Attack (A07)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 260 more games of Krum Georgiev
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: Games that have been used in game collections will have a section at the bottom which shows collections which include it. For more information, see "What are Game Collections?" on our Help Page.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-03-21  RandomVisitor: 11...b5 and a queenside push might be a good try for black, and might even result in an even game:


click for larger view

Stockfish_21013116_x64_modern:

<54/67 14:50 0.00 11...b5 12.a3 a5 13.e5 b4> 14.axb4 axb4 15.Ne4 dxe5 16.fxe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe5 Bxe5 18.Bh6 bxc3 19.bxc3 Bg7 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Qd2 e5

Feb-03-21  Whitehat1963: Looked at it for a while and never reached a solution. Its easy after you see it!
Feb-03-21  saturn2: Trying to solve the puzzle I observed two weaknesses of black. One is the back rank leading to the game line 21.Bxc6.

The other weakness is rook on g7 and this suggests 21.Ne6.

21...Bxe622.Qxe6+Kh823.Rd7maybe doubling rooks on the d file and then on the 7 th rank

Rook moves yield

21...Rf722.Qg5+Kh823.Nxf5Rxf524.Rxf5Qg8-

25.Qf6 or

21...Rg422.Bf3Ra423.Bh5 and the black queen is in trouble

Those lines are clearly won for white though I dont see the 4.0 advantage the machine is seeing in the first line.

Feb-03-21  goodevans: <mel gibson: <Feb-03-21 goodevans: <mel gibson: I found 3 solutions with Stockfish 12...> You might want to check your 2nd and 3rd "solutions".> They are checked -
direct copied and pasted results from Stockfish 12.>

So don't the large negative numbers indicate a win for black?

Feb-03-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  agb2002: White is one pawn down.

The black bishop weakens it's own back rank. This suggests 21.Bxc6:

A) 21... Qxc6 22.Rd8+ Qe8 23.Rxe8#.

B) 21... Nxc6 22.Qxc6

B.1) 22... Qxc6 23.Rd8+ Qe8 24.Rxe8#.

B.2) 22... Bd7 23.Qd5+

B.2.a) 23... Kh8 24.Nxf5 Rxg5 (24... Bc6 25.Nxg7 Bxd5 26.Nxe8 Rxe8 27.Rxd5 wins a rook) 25.Qxd7 wins a piece.

B.2.b) 23... Kf8 24.Nxf5 is crushing (24... Rxg5 26.Nd6+).

B.3) 22... Qe7 23.Qd5+

B.3.a) 23... Kh8 24.Qd8+ Qxd8 25.Rxd8+ Rg8 26.Rxg8+ Kxg8 27.Nxf5 wins a piece.

B.3.b) 23... Kf8 24.Nxf5 Bxf5 (24... Qxg5 25.Nxg7+ Kxg7 26.Qxe5+ and 27.Qxb8) 25.Rxf5+ Rf7 (25... Ke8 26.Qc6+ wins the queen) 26.Rxf7+ Qxf7 27.Qd6+ and 28.Qxb8 wins a rook.

Feb-03-21  RandomVisitor: After 17..fxe4 white is unstoppable:


click for larger view

Stockfish_21013116_x64_modern:

<52/91 1:56:11 +7.36 18.Bxe4 Bh3 19.Bxg7 Rxf1+ 20.Rxf1 Bxf1 21.Bf6 Bd3 22.Qxh7+> Kf8 23.Ng6+ Ke8 24.Bxc6+ Nxc6 25.Bxd8 Rxd8 26.h4 Rd6 27.Qg8+ Kd7 28.Qg7+ Kc8

Feb-03-21  RandomVisitor: After 20...Qe8:


click for larger view

Stockfish_21013116_x64_modern:

<45/76 29:16 +8.34 21.Bxc6 Nxc6 22.Qxc6 Qe7 23.Qd5+> Kh8 24.Qd8+ Qxd8 25.Rxd8+ Rg8 26.Rfd1 b5 27.Rxg8+ Kxg8 28.Rd8+ Kg7 29.Ne6+ Kf6 30.Nxc5 Ra8 31.Rf8+ Ke7

45/61 29:16 +7.65 21.g4 Kh8 22.Bxc6 Qg8 23.Qf6 Nxc6 24.Nxf5 Bxf5 25.Rxf5 Ne7 26.Rff1 Ng6 27.Rd7 Rf8 28.Rxg7 Qxg7 29.Qxg7+ Kxg7 30.Ne6+ Kg8 31.Nxf8 Nxf8

45/58 29:16 +7.62 21.Bf3 e4 22.Bh5 Qf8 23.Rd6 Rxg5 24.Qxg5+ Qg7 25.Qe3 Kh8 26.Be2 Qf8 27.Bb5 Ne5 28.Qf4 Nf7 29.Rf6 Rb7 30.Ba6 Kg7 31.Nxf5+ Nxf5

Feb-03-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<mel gibson> They are checked - direct copied and pasted results from Stockfish 12.>

Coping and pasting results from Stockfish 12 (or any other engine) is not "checking" them. All that shows is that you know how to copy and paste.

Stockfish, again like other engines, can make mistakes or at least suggest less than optimum lines. Most of them would likely involve some version of the horizon effect or misevaluation of the position resulting from a failure to recognize fortress positions. Checking involves going through the moves <yourself> and making sure that the engine didn't make a mistake.

As a bonus, if you do that and try to figure out <why> an engine played the moves that it did, you will likely learn something and improve your game. And you can pat yourself on the back if you notice what look like promising alternatives and, after restarting the analysis from that position with your alternative, it results in finding a better move or a better evaluation.

For the fun of it I had "my" Stockfish 12 analyze the position after 20...Qe8 and list its top 20 lines. All were theoretically winning, with evaluations at d=42 ranging from [+10.24] to [+3.67], and I consider any evaluation > [2.00] to be theoretically winning.

I say "theoretically' because the computer analysis assumes that the best moves are played by both sides, and in a game between human players that is seldom, if ever, possible. And it's also possible that the computer misevaluated the final position, again due either to the horizon effect or not recognizing a fortress position. But, if Stockfish's evaluations are valid, or even if only most of them are, then I don't think that selecting a reasonable move that is a solution to the puzzle (there are likely more than 20 moves that satisfy this criteria) makes this puzzle one of Wednesday-level difficulty.

The best line "my" Stockfish found (PV=1) was the game continuation, 21.Bxc6, with the "best" defense by Black being 21...Nxc6 22.Qxc6 Qe7. The relatively "worst" line (if you can call a theoretically winning line as "worst") was 21.Rd5 e4 (not 21...Nxd5) 21.Rd6. If White can afford to lose a tempo and still have a theoretically winning position, then I think that Black was justified in resigning when he did.

Feb-03-21  mel gibson: <Feb-03-21 goodevans: <mel gibson: <Feb-03-21 goodevans: <mel gibson: I found 3 solutions with Stockfish 12...> You might want to check your 2nd and 3rd "solutions".> They are checked - direct copied and pasted results from Stockfish 12.>

So don't the large negative numbers indicate a win for black?>

No - a score for Black of -6.26 depth 32
means that Black is losing with that score.

Feb-03-21  mel gibson: <Coping and pasting results from Stockfish 12 (or any other engine) is not "checking" them. All that shows is that you know how to copy and paste.>

I did check all the results by placing the computer in self play mode at 2 seconds per move
and letting it run for a few minutes.
That confirmed the scores that I posted.
I could also see why the scores were as they were for the different lines I posted.
I haven't written a full ply by ply explanation.

Feb-03-21  goodevans: <melgibson> The normal (before today I would have said universal) convention is that +ve scores are in white's favour and -ve scores are in black's. I'll try to remember that your posts don't necessarily follow the same convention as everyone else's.

Unfortunately your 'copy and paste' posts are mostly in the figurative notation (♗c8xf5) which I find almost impossible to read. If they'd been in standard algebraic (Bxf5) I may well have played them through to check them out but in that notation it would have given me a headache.

Just waiting to see what <AK> makes of <I did check all the results by placing the computer in self play mode...> if indeed he hasn't put his fist through his keyboard.

Feb-03-21  mel gibson: <The normal (before today I would have said universal) convention is that +ve scores are in white's favour and -ve scores are in black's. I'll try to remember that your posts don't necessarily follow the same convention as everyone else's.>

Never heard of that -
The Arena interface that I use shows the score for the side that is responding to the last ply.

<Unfortunately your 'copy and paste' posts are mostly in the figurative notation (♗c8xf5) which I find almost impossible to read. > This website chessgames.com changes
it to that notation automatically.

<if indeed he hasn't put his fist through his keyboard.> How else was I supposed to check the moves?
Remember that Stockfish 12 has a rating far higher than any human - least of all me.

Feb-03-21  King.Arthur.Brazil: It is pretty obvious that after 21...♘xc6 will meet 22. ♕xc6 ♕xc6 23. ♖d8+ ♕e8 24. ♖xe8#. Also, if 21...♖g6?? 22. ♘xg6 ♕xg6 23. ♖d8+ with the same check-mate. Also, if Black would play something different, for example, 20...♗d7?? 21. ♘e6! is even worst. Therefore, looking back, I don't like the move 12...gxf5?. It is the beginning of all the troubles: it open partially the 'g' file, weakens the castle, also bring an easy and nice place for the white ♕ at h5, white continue to pressure on f5. The line 12...h6 13. ♘h4 ♔h7 14. ♘g4 ♘g8 15. ♕f3 ♘f6 16. fxg6+ fxg6 gives to Black less dangerous position, in its Petrosianic defence. However, even here, the King still prefer to have the White colours and go on the attack... lgs.
Feb-03-21  njchess: <1g1yy> I think Black resigns for the simple reason that even if he plays 21. ... ♘xc6 22. ♕xc6 ♕e7 +-, he is down a minor piece without any obvious counter attacking possibilities. Meanwhile, White has tempi with a solid attack. Black would have been stuck playing a losing position hoping for a blunder from White. Hence, Black's resignation.

That said, it must have been difficult to resign with his queen and both rooks still on the board.

Feb-03-21  Brenin: Whatever their validity (and I'm with <AylerKupp> on that), I'm afraid that I find blocks of 5-6 lines of Stockfish output, with figurative notation, nested brackets and no move numbers, completely unreadable. Explanations, however brief or hypothetical, are far more useful.
Feb-03-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<goodevans> Just waiting to see what <AK> makes of <I did check all the results by placing the computer in self play mode...> if indeed he hasn't put his fist through his keyboard.>

I didn't put my fist through my keyboard. My original objection to <mel gibson>'s post was that in it (Krum Georgiev vs F Vareille, 1998 (kibitz #8)) he only said that "They are checked - direct copied and pasted results from Stockfish 12." But he later explained that he also checked the results by placing the computer in self play mode and letting it run for a few minutes. I believe that however you check the computer's results is up to the person doing the analysis, as long as there is some method of checking the computer's results I'm OK with that. Not that it matters whether I'm OK with that or not, who am I to complain?

As far as his use of figurative notation I find it hard to read also, and mentioned that to him in the past. But he prefers it this way and, again, who am I to tell him how to do it? To each his own.

Feb-03-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<mel gibson> Never heard of that - The Arena interface that I use shows the score for the side that is responding to the last ply.>

I didn't know that you used the Arena GUI. I also use the Arena GUI so I can tell you that showing the evaluation from the perspective of which player has the move is the default, but it can also be changed to always show a positive evaluation for White and a negative evaluation for Black irrespective of who is to move. From the Main Menu select Options > Appearance > Other settings> Chess and checking the 'Values always from white's point of view' box. But again, they're your analyses and your choice.

And when I started doing chess engine analysis back in 2010 in the The World vs N Pogonina, 2010 game, I didn't know this so I left the default on. It confused me quite a bit, and others also pointed out that I was getting it "wrong" when I posted that Black had an advantage when in reality it was the other way around.

Arena is a very rich chess GUI and you can extensively customize it to your preferences in many ways. I thought that the Arena Help system is very thorough and I went through it in great detail in order to make it work according to my preferences. And, yes, it took me quite a long time to do so, but I felt it was worth it.

<This website chessgames.com changes it to that notation automatically>

Hmmm. I didn't know that. I thought that you might be copying and pasting the analysis results directly from the Arena Move Info/Statistic window to the Kibitzing box and that the piece letters are somehow converted to figurines in the process, but I tried to do that and I couldn't do it. I know that if you include your text in braces in the kibitzing box the piece name letters are converted to figurines, but I don't know how the braces might be introduced into the kibitzing box using a copy and paste operation.

FWIW what I do is copy and paste the analysis results using the Main Menu the Position > Copy Analysis to Clipboard command into MS Word from which I can edit it as I want/need.

Feb-03-21  mel gibson: < it can also be changed to always show a positive evaluation for White and a negative evaluation for Black irrespective of who is to move.>

I don't want to change it -
it's so clear to me and also better than the method you like.

I just save the file of the game and
open it up in Notepad to extract out the
part that I need -
I then copy & paste into this website.

Feb-03-21  mel gibson: <As far as his use of figurative notation I find it hard to read also, and mentioned that to him in the past. But he prefers it this way and, again, who am I to tell him how to do it? To each his own.>

I can follow it.
I could put it into the standard form that you'd find in a chess book but it would require a lot of work. If there were 32 moves then there would be 32 lines - a very long list.
I am not being paid to do the analysis
so I feel that I've done enough work free of charge and if anyone really wants it in textbook form they can do it themselves and repost it here on this site. No one ever has done that from the analysis I've posted. It looks like I'm not the only one who can't be bothered. What I'm really doing is providing some kind of proof that the game has been analysed by a computer -
with the strongest available software.

Feb-04-21  RandomVisitor: After 20...Qe8, let's compare Stockfish top 3 moves at 29 minutes of thought with Stockfish at 23 hours of thought, with 11 moves of PV displayed for each side:

After 20...Qe8:


click for larger view

Stockfish_21013116_x64_modern:

Bxc6:

58/81 22:41:23 +8.80 21.Bxc6 Nxc6 22.Qxc6 Qe7 23.Qd5+ Kh8 24.Qd8+ Qxd8 25.Rxd8+ Rg8 26.Rfd1 <a6> 27.Nhf3 h6 28.Nf7+ Kg7 29.N7xe5 Be6 30.R8d6 Rge8 31.Nh4 b5

45/76 29:16 +8.34 21.Bxc6 Nxc6 22.Qxc6 Qe7 23.Qd5+ Kh8 24.Qd8+ Qxd8 25.Rxd8+ Rg8 26.Rfd1 <b5> 27.Rxg8+ Kxg8 28.Rd8+ Kg7 29.Ne6+ Kf6 30.Nxc5 Ra8 31.Rf8+ Ke7

g4:

58/82 22:41:23 +8.23 21.g4 Kh8 22.Bxc6 Qg8 23.Qf6 Nxc6 24.Nxf5 Bxf5 25.Rxf5 Ne7 26.Rff1 Ng6 27.Rd7 Rf8 28.Rxg7 Qxg7 29.Qxg7+ Kxg7 30.Ne6+ Kg8 31.Nxf8 Nxf8

45/61 29:16 +7.65 21.g4 Kh8 22.Bxc6 Qg8 23.Qf6 Nxc6 24.Nxf5 Bxf5 25.Rxf5 Ne7 26.Rff1 Ng6 27.Rd7 Rf8 28.Rxg7 Qxg7 29.Qxg7+ Kxg7 30.Ne6+ Kg8 31.Nxf8 Nxf8

<identical>

Bf3:

58/84 22:41:23 +8.40 21.Bf3 e4 22.Bh5 Qf8 23.Rd6 Rxg5 24.Qxg5+ Qg7 25.Qe3 Kh8 26.Be2 Qf8 27.Bb5 <Bb7> 28.Qg5 Qg7 29.Qxg7+ Kxg7 30.Nxf5+ Nxf5 31.Rxf5 Ne7

45/58 29:16 +7.62 21.Bf3 e4 22.Bh5 Qf8 23.Rd6 Rxg5 24.Qxg5+ Qg7 25.Qe3 Kh8 26.Be2 Qf8 27.Bb5 <Ne5> 28.Qf4 Nf7 29.Rf6 Rb7 30.Ba6 Kg7 31.Nxf5+ Nxf5

In this particular case, there is large scale agreement with at least the first 6 moves per side, at a much deeper level of thought. This does not prove anything, of course, other than there is nothing 'fishy' about reasonably long runs of 'unverified' Stockfish in positions where the complexity of the position can be thoroughly explored.

Feb-04-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<mel gibson> I don't want to change it - it's so clear to me and also better than the method you like.>

I don't want to start an argument but I clearly said that there is no need for you to change anything. If that's the way you like it and the way you want to post your analyses you are certainly free to do so. I merely made some suggestions since we seem to be using the same Arena GUI and since I've been doing so for 10 years, and because Arena has many options that many don't know about, I thought that you might be interested in some of the things I've learned. If you're not, just ignore them.

But you're claiming that your approach is "better" than the one I use is indefensible. Neither approach is better than the other, we both have our preferences and that's all it they are, personal preferences.

<I can follow it. I could put it into the standard form that you'd find in a chess book but it would require a lot of work.>

Again, no one is asking you to change it, certainly not me. You are certainly free to post analyses any way you want to.

<I am not being paid to do the analysis so I feel that I've done enough work free of charge and if anyone really wants it in textbook form they can do it themselves and repost it here on this site.>

None of us are; we are not professional chess analysts. Most of us, I assume, do it because we are curious/interested in the evaluation of positions and their impact on games and want to share what we have found with others.

<What I'm really doing is providing some kind of proof that the game has been analyzed by a computer - with the strongest available software.>

I don't think that anyone was arguing that you had not analyzed one position in this game using a computer. If you remember my original comment after <goodevans> told you that "you might want to check your 2nd and 3rd solutions" was about your response that you had copied and pasted the results from Stockfish (or any other engine) to the kibitzing box and implying that this constituted "checking". I disagreed. You then said that you had also checked the results by placing the computer in self play mode at 2 seconds per move and letting it run for a few minutes. So you clearly, I think, also agreed that copying and pasting the results of the analysis did not constitute "checking". And that satisfied my objection. I merely told you what I do and that was never meant to be an implied request that you change the way you do it.

But if it makes you feel better I won't bother responding to any of your posts even though my motive was only to share some of the things I've learned in an attempt to be helpful.

Feb-04-21  mel gibson: <But if it makes you feel better I won't bother responding to any of your posts even though my motive was only to share some of the things I've learned in an attempt to be helpful.>

Sorry that you have such hard feelings about it.

Feb-04-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  gawain: Oh, I see. The puzzle is about how White goes a clear piece up because of the threat of back rank mate via Rd8. I did not get it until I set the engine to work.
Feb-08-21
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<mel gibson> Sorry that you have such hard feelings about it.>

I don't have any feelings about it, good or bad, hard or soft, whatsoever. Go ahead and continue posting your analyses that no one will bother to look at because they are just too hard to follow. I was just trying to be helpful in case you wanted to learn how to address others' comments to make it easier for them to follow, but it's clear that you don't care. And if you don't care, why should I or anyone else?

Feb-08-21  Z legend 000000010: One thing <CG> could really use as an improvement, is playable boards in the comments. Beyond just displaying a position, but allowing variations to be played.

<Chesstempo> has had this from long, long ago.

<Chess.com> has this for blog posts, does it also have it for comments?

.

search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
21.? (February 3, 2021)
from Wednesday Puzzles, 2018-2021 by Phony Benoni
KIA vs Sicilian Bg7 (A07) 1-0 21.? U R A daisy if U do!
from Melbourne CC Idea for Fredthebear by fredthebear
21.? (Wednesday, February 3)
from Puzzle of the Day 2021 by Phony Benoni
KIA vs Sicilian Bg7 (A07) 1-0 21.? U R A daisy if U do!
from MoreMinors on the Back Rank Watching Fredthebear by fredthebear
Short Tactical Shots
by LRLeighton
Medium
from Finishing tactics by CRAZYGOD

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC