Increasingly ironic and bothersome is the contrast between the "countless pats on the shoulder" Grooten received upon his eclatant win over <T Hillarp Persson> - only to find out later that night that the engine found a "bg leak."

'Nuff said - IMNSHO.

Your rant was justified and true in many, or every, sense.

Also supported by a book review over at <howard>'s - here's an excerpt:

<The first chapter sets the tone for the rest of the book, because it helps to explain when computer-assisted analysis may be useful, and <<<when it should be at least treated with caution.>>> The second chapter builds on the discussion by examining various methods for using the computer for analysis. The author argues that <<< the best use of the computer is as a sparring partner >>>, where the human player comes up with plans and uses the computer to check on their implementation.>

Just like we've been concluding for well over a year now.

Like you said too: Just use it for Blunderchecking, and sparring in selected positions.

sigh

Is it a real movie? Have you seen it?

OK I'm voting for <Godzilla> for the poll.

<Kong> is obviously brilliant, but <Godzilla> is more impressive.

But I would like to bet on both of them to take <MechaGodzilla>.

That dirty <MechaGodzilla>!!!

Also, thanks for <CHOCOLATE MOOSE WEEK>.

In a rare serious post- your "play by play" sports analysis of <Japanese Monsters> actually catches the dynamic spirit of all those great, great, movies.

Also, as you point out, it does bear on the "human v. machine" theme that is omnipresent these days.

I think I hate <MechaGodzilla> because I resent Chess Engines being king now.

I suppose <Kasparov> was the last <real Godzilla> to live.

I used to watch cartoons and Japanese monster movies every Saturday morning with my big brother, and we built those plasitc models of the monsters too.

And other horror movies they showed then as well.

We had <Godzilla, King Kong, Dracula, Frankenstein> models and we used to play with them all the time.

NUMBER 2 (in a series inspired by <Boomie>:

Fine vs Botvinnik, 1938
<Winawer Mystery!!>

1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. e5 c5
5. dxc5

click for larger view

Well if you're a club player like me, if you are Black here, just how are you going to prevent your fingers from automatically playing <5...d4!?!?> here?

It looks very tasty- On a nanosecond's "thought" it looks like it wins a piece outright- it doesn't, of course, but after a minute's "further thought" it looks rather decent, to say the least.

But is it? Is it a chance to TOTALLY WRECK White's Queen pawn structure, or is it folly?

Well the <Opening Explorer> Statistics are somewhat mysterious-

<5...d4?!?> has only been played once in our database, but the sample of games is very very small- suggesting that there may be something not so good about <5.dxc5> in the first place.

OK here are the two questions:

1. Why is <5...d4> not played here? What's wrong with it? Be specific and give lines please.

2. Why is <5.dxc5> not played very often? What's wrong with it?

Psakhis (2003), in his Winawar book, spends almost 3 pages on dxc5, so it may not be as much <bad> as <unpopular>. I haven't time to summarize it now, but I can try later if you're interested.

The only note he gives on 5...d4? is 6. a3 dxc3 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. axb4 "when White's advantage is obvious."

The other try of 5...d4 6. a3 Ba5 was played in Ganguly vs D Barua, 2004, which is the only master-level game in my database as well with 5...d4.

I suspect 5. dxc5 isn't seen much because it breaks up the White center and White will need to support e5 with pieces. Black can also bust up White's queenside more than usual for the same cost (B vs N) as in a standard Winawer.

<"<5.d4xc5>...This old line is seldom seen in tournaments. With the text move Whhite voluntarily abandons d4 to aim for active play of his pieces in the center. from expwerience black obtains equal play if his defence is precise.">

Suetin gives <5....Qc7> as Black's best reply.

He also gives this line <5....d4 6.a3 Ba5 7. b4 dc3 8.ba5 (also good is 8.Qg4) Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 Ne7 10. Ne2 Nd7 11.Nxc3 Nxe5 12.f4> and "White has the advantage (Christyakov-Lyublinsky, Moscow, 1945). I couldn't find the game anywhere.

I found it at http://chesslive.de/

<1. Why is <5...d4> not played here? What's wrong with it? Be specific and give lines please.>

ok, it looks like winning a piece right? you're attacking a <pinned piece> with a pawn. but the problem is, that white can attack the <pinning piece> with a pawn. if the <pinning piece> moves away from the attacking pawn and releases the pin, then the <pinned piece> can move away from the other attacking pawn.

this is similar to a mechanism in the totally bananas <Botvinnik Gambit> in the Semi-Slav (see Denker vs Botvinnik, 1945) - white plays e5, attacking the f6 knight, which is pinned by the g5 bishop. but black can attack the g5 bishop with h6, keeping the balance.

specifically, white plays 6.a3, and there is no way for black to capitalize on the pin. in this case, if black tries to maintain the pin with 6...Ba5, white can break the pin by force and with tempo with 7.b4, keeping the balance. if black doesn't want to retreat, he must exchange off his good bishop, and doesn't really get anything in exchange, and he has compromised his strong central d-pawn. if white didn't have the option of 6.a3, then 5...d4 would win a piece immediately.

<2. Why is <5.dxc5> not played very often? What's wrong with it?>

ok, i think Nimzovitch provides a good answer to this in <My System>, so i'll quote him. this comment is regarding the position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5, but can be applied to any advance french type of position.

<White has several replies to 3...c5. The plan of the second player will stand out clearest if White plays ingeniously, as if he had no conception of the problem of the pawn chain. For example, 4.dxc5 Bxc5 5.Nc3? f6! Events have taken their logical course. The base, the d4 pawn was first put out of action, and then the e5 pawn got it in the neck. We must always begin with the base of the pawn chain. To continue our game: after 5...f6! there would follow 6.exf6? (as artless as ever. 6.Nf3 was certainly better.) 6...Nxf6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bd3 e5! Thanks to White's faulty strategy, Black's freeing operations which as a rule take up to 20-25 moves have already been completed. Black first caused the links in White's chain voluntarily to disappear one after the other, beginning with the base (by the captures 4.dxc5 and 6.exf6) and thereupon let his own pawns advance in triumph with 8...e5! This advance, so eagerly sought after, affords the explanation of the energetic measures taken by Black with his 3rd and following moves, namely the recovery of mobility for his cramped pawns. This was all that Black sought or desired.>

After 5...d4 6.a3 Black might try 6...Bxc3 7.bxc3 dxc3 when 8.Qg4 looks quite promising. Or 6...Ba5 7.b4 dxc3 8.bxa5 (not Qxd8?? Bxd8) Qxa5 (if Qxd1+ 9.Kxd1 White is still a battered pawn up and his two bishops may make good use of the open lines) 9.Qg4 g6 (unless Black can risk Ne7 here) 10.Qb4 and White looks better.

[Event "URS-sf"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1945.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Chistiakov, Alexander Nikolaevi"]
[Black "Liublinsky, Victor Alexandrovic"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C17"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[EventDate "1945.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "15"]
[EventCountry "URS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. dxc5 d4 6. a3 Ba5 7. b4 dxc3 8. bxa5 Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1 Ne7 10. Ne2 Nd7 11. Nxc3 Nxe5 12. f4 N5c6 13. Bd3 Nxa5 14. Rb1 O-O 15. Re1 Nac6 16. Ke2 Rb8 17. Kf2 Rd8 18. Ne4 Nd5 19. Nd6 b6 20. f5 exf5 21. Bg5 Nf6 22. Bxf6 gxf6 23. Nxc8 Rdxc8 24. Bxf5 Rd8 25. Rb3 Rd2+ 26. Kg1 Nd4 27. Rg3+ Kh8 28. Bd3 bxc5 29. c3 Ne6 30. Bf5 Nf4 31. Rg4 Ne2+ 32. Kh1 Nxc3 33. h3 Rd5 34. Bc2 Rg5 35. Rf4 Rb2 36. Rf2 Kg7 37. Kh2 Ra2 38. Re3 Nd1 39. Bxd1 Rxf2 40. Bf3 Re5 41. Rc3 Ra2 42. Kg3 Rd2 43. Kh2 f5 44. Kg3 Rd4 45. Kf2 c4 46. Kg3 Re3 0-1

[Event "Gibraltar Masters"]
[Site "Catalan Bay"]
[Date "2004.01.31"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Ganguly, Surya Shekhar"]
[Black "Barua, Dibyendu"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C17"]
[WhiteElo "2541"]
[BlackElo "2549"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "2004.01.27"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "ENG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2004.03.10"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. dxc5 d4 6. a3 Ba5 7. b4 dxc3 8. bxa5 Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1 Ne7 10. Bb5+ Bd7 11. Rb1 Bxb5 12. Rxb5 Nbc6 13. Bg5 a6 14. Rb3 Nd5 15. Rxb7 h6 16. Bc1 Nxe5 17. Ke2 Nc6 18. Nf3 Nxa5 19. Rb1 Nc6 20. Rd1 O-O-O 21. Nd4 Kc7 22. Be3 Rb8 23. Nxc6 Kxc6 24. Kd3 Rhd8 25. Rxb8 Rxb8 26. Bd4 Rd8 27. Rb1 f6 28. Kc4 Rc8 29. Rb3 h5 30. Bxc3 h4 31. Ba5 Rh8 32. Rb1 Rh5 33. Rb8 Rf5 34. Rc8+ Kd7 35. Ra8 Rxf2 36. Ra7+ Ke8 37. Kb3 Rxg2 38. c6 Ne7 39. Ra8+ Kf7 40. c7 Rg5 41. Bb4 Rb5 42. Rf8+ 1-0

Schwartz cites the <Tschistjakow/Lublinsky Moscow 1945> game with yet another spelling--no wonder I couldn't find it. Anyway, here is the analysis that he gives.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "Fritz 10"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "17"]
[TimeControl "604800+259200"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. dxc5 d4
6. a3 Ba5 7. b4 Bc7 (7... dxc3 8. bxa5 (8. Qg4 $1 Ne7 9. bxa5) 8... Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1 Ne7 10. Ne2 Nd7 $2 (10... Nd5 $11) 11. Nxc3 Nxe5 12. f4 N5c6 13. Bd3 $14) 8. Nb5 Bxe5 $2 9. Nf3 $18 *

I worked with Mr. Kim and Mr. Wong (or is it Huong?) and they were BOTH chainsmoking whilst tiling a basement and after 3 days they sent me home and consequently its sunday and i've been lying in bed with a migraine all day.