| |
Main
Date: 17 Sep 2007 12:16:50
From: Chess One
Subject: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
Dr. Phil:
Dutch GM Tim Krabbe comp�led website with
"110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"
We did computerevaluations of all of them.
Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
did.
Amazing.
Greetings from Amsterdam.
Albert H. Alberts, updated website www.howtofoolfritz.com
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 07:11:22
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 20, 6:59 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 6:11 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> The velous nr.2 Topalov-Shirov I think still is a dazzling Swindle. 1-
> > >> Bh3!? and not Topalov's 2.gh3? but 2. Kf2! secures a draw never mind one
> > >> reader posting 2. -Bg2 as a black win.
>
> > > This is incorrect. What one poster claimed is that
> > > *3.* Bxg2 wins as in the game.
>
> > > -- help bot
>
> > why don't you write to the author of the piece and share your views? he did
> > post his website and e-mail here pi
>
> Because maybe I am not interested in working on his
> "piece", or for that matter on whether or not he thinks a
> move leads to a draw or a win.
>
> I have not analyzed this to see if the suggested move Kf2
> holds a draw, or if the counter of *3.* Bxg2 wins, but I don't
> need to in order to debunk the comment that *2.* Bxg2 was
> claimed to win, since no such claim was made here; it is a
> simply a matter of paying attention. This is really no
> different from the Blairbot jumping in to point out when a
> silly claim is made, where the quotes refute the silly claim.
>
> One example would be if Neil Brennan were to claim that
> Larry Parr had given himself the IM title, and then the Blairbot
> jumps in giving quotes which prove NB had gotten you mixed
> up with Mr. Parr. Well, that example is flawed since the
> Blairbot is a massive computerized automaton which tracks
> every post ever made to rgc, whereas I am doing this by
> memory and only spotted this error by chance. :>D
>
> -- help bot
I can't imagine that I could ever mistake Parr for Innes. Larry is
literate.
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 06:24:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 20, 7:56 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 8:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Sep 17, 8:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Dr. Phil:
>
> > Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
> > nearly-an-IM title? ;-)
>
> > **Obviously, dear.
>
> That's what I thought. In what discipline?
Innes once claimed that in the UK it would be laughable for an
academic to use the title "doctor" unless he was head of a college.
Perhaps Innes is head of Abnormal Psych at University of Brattleboro?
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 16:59:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 20, 6:11 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> The velous nr.2 Topalov-Shirov I think still is a dazzling Swindle. 1-
> >> Bh3!? and not Topalov's 2.gh3? but 2. Kf2! secures a draw never mind one
> >> reader posting 2. -Bg2 as a black win.
>
> > This is incorrect. What one poster claimed is that
> > *3.* Bxg2 wins as in the game.
>
> > -- help bot
>
> why don't you write to the author of the piece and share your views? he did
> post his website and e-mail here pi
Because maybe I am not interested in working on his
"piece", or for that matter on whether or not he thinks a
move leads to a draw or a win.
I have not analyzed this to see if the suggested move Kf2
holds a draw, or if the counter of *3.* Bxg2 wins, but I don't
need to in order to debunk the comment that *2.* Bxg2 was
claimed to win, since no such claim was made here; it is a
simply a matter of paying attention. This is really no
different from the Blairbot jumping in to point out when a
silly claim is made, where the quotes refute the silly claim.
One example would be if Neil Brennan were to claim that
Larry Parr had given himself the IM title, and then the Blairbot
jumps in giving quotes which prove NB had gotten you mixed
up with Mr. Parr. Well, that example is flawed since the
Blairbot is a massive computerized automaton which tracks
every post ever made to rgc, whereas I am doing this by
memory and only spotted this error by chance. : >D
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:59:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 20, 6:11 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> The velous nr.2 Topalov-Shirov I think still is a dazzling Swindle.
>> >> 1-
>> >> Bh3!? and not Topalov's 2.gh3? but 2. Kf2! secures a draw never mind
>> >> one
>> >> reader posting 2. -Bg2 as a black win.
>>
>> > This is incorrect. What one poster claimed is that
>> > *3.* Bxg2 wins as in the game.
>>
>> > -- help bot
>>
>> why don't you write to the author of the piece and share your views? he
>> did
>> post his website and e-mail here pi
>
> Because maybe I am not interested in working on his
> "piece", or for that matter on whether or not he thinks a
> move leads to a draw or a win.
Then since you are 'not interested' enough to discuss your ideas with him,
you still are interested to do... what exactly here?.. Let's see
> I have not analyzed this to see if the suggested move Kf2
> holds a draw, or if the counter of *3.* Bxg2 wins, but I don't
> need to in order to debunk the comment that *2.* Bxg2 was
> claimed to win, since no such claim was made here; it is a
> simply a matter of paying attention.
But you are 'not interested' in his piece enough to keep mentioning his
conclusions?
> This is really no
> different from the Blairbot jumping in to point out when a
> silly claim is made, where the quotes refute the silly claim.
Laugh - well, that opens up the range of what 'interested' could mean, eh?
Blairbot is 'not interested' to the extent of 30,000 words per subject, in
duplicate. When asked about his point, he would respond that he never said
he had one - which is not an intelligent appreciation of English
comprehension, since non-mathematicians understand this to be a request to
come to a point, rather than an accusation.
> One example would be if Neil Brennan were to claim
What does that word 'claim' mean these days? I see it used synonymously with
'say'. Is it a synonym for 'speculate'?
> that
> Larry Parr had given himself the IM title, and then the Blairbot
> jumps in giving quotes which prove NB had gotten you mixed
> up with Mr. Parr.
Then that would rest on the level of intelligence one attributes to NB in
comprehending the English language. After all, this is the guy who can quite
an anon expert to say 'old english is dead', which unfortunately is a
citation which makes its case by using 4 words of old english.
<<<<ROFL >>>>
As for the Blairbot, he would be content to repeat anything at all if it is
written, since evidently that is of great importance to him, rather more so
in fact than understanding the relative merits of what the writing actually
says.
> Well, that example is flawed since the
> Blairbot is a massive computerized automaton which tracks
> every post ever made to rgc, whereas I am doing this by
> memory and only spotted this error by chance. :>D
I suppose. But in terms of real popularity*, its not enough to be rigorously
sceptical and unimpressed by 'Greats', it is also necessary to say something
on-topic which engages others in the /process/ of one's own insight. In
short, to talk with other people not at or to them.
Phil Innes
*which means the /subject/ of one's comments are popular - since we are
indifferent to egoic-heroics, no?
> -- help bot
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 16:29:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 20, 8:35 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> The word "amateur" did not appear in this thread until you placed it
> there yourself, Phil. A simple use of your computer's ctrl-F function
> will verify this for you.
This makes no sense; if IM Innes inserted the word
here, would it not be horribly misspelled? Look, there
is a potential double-m, a possible "ch" in place of the
t, and you cannot deny that getting the "eu" right is
tough as nails. I say it could not therefore, have been
IM Innes who inserted this word from out of nowhere.
I blame the servers at Google or perhaps, space aliens.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 14:17:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 20, 6:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The velous nr.2 Topalov-Shirov I think still is a dazzling Swindle. 1-
> Bh3!? and not Topalov's 2.gh3? but 2. Kf2! secures a draw never mind one
> reader posting 2. -Bg2 as a black win.
This is incorrect. What one poster claimed is that
*3.* Bxg2 wins as in the game.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 23:11:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 20, 6:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The velous nr.2 Topalov-Shirov I think still is a dazzling Swindle. 1-
>> Bh3!? and not Topalov's 2.gh3? but 2. Kf2! secures a draw never mind one
>> reader posting 2. -Bg2 as a black win.
>
> This is incorrect. What one poster claimed is that
> *3.* Bxg2 wins as in the game.
>
>
> -- help bot
why don't you write to the author of the piece and share your views? he did
post his website and e-mail here pi
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 06:35:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 20, 9:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 20, 8:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Sep 17, 8:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Dr. Phil:
>
> > Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
> > nearly-an-IM title? ;-)
>
> > **Obviously, dear.
>
> That's what I thought. In what discipline?
>
> Dr. =3D dear. Geddit? I mean, do you geddit yet? 3 times and your....
> zzzzzzzzz
>
> > I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
> > saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
> > opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
> > very human aspect of chess, which Krabb=E9 celebrates. There is nothing
> > wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
> > presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
> > moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
> > factors a computer can never appreciate.
>
> > **I am not sure I like the use of the word 'amateur' in the above,
>
> Um, Phil? The word "amateur" did not appear in my post. Now we know
> what your doctorate is in: dyslexia!
>
> Does this mean that you did not use the term yourself?
It means exactly that, Phil. It means that you suffered an
hallucination, or committed a fabrication. Both are habitual with you,
Phil, as the group well knows.
> Or disagree with it,
> or that the 'above' relates to the thread chronology?
The word "amateur" did not appear in this thread until you placed it
there yourself, Phil. A simple use of your computer's ctrl-F function
will verify this for you.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 23:06:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 20, 9:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 20, 8:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Sep 17, 8:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Dr. Phil:
>
> > Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
> > nearly-an-IM title? ;-)
>
> > **Obviously, dear.
>
> That's what I thought. In what discipline?
>
> Dr. = dear. Geddit? I mean, do you geddit yet? 3 times and your....
> zzzzzzzzz
>
> > I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
> > saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
> > opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
> > very human aspect of chess, which Krabb� celebrates. There is nothing
> > wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
> > presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
> > moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
> > factors a computer can never appreciate.
>
> > **I am not sure I like the use of the word 'amateur' in the above,
>
> Um, Phil? The word "amateur" did not appear in my post. Now we know
> what your doctorate is in: dyslexia!
>
> Does this mean that you did not use the term yourself?
It means exactly that, Phil. It means that you suffered an
hallucination,
**Taylor, let me tell you straight, I don't want your projections smearing
up these threads, of what other people must have thought, and such stuff.
or committed a fabrication. Both are habitual with you,
Phil, as the group well knows.
**You cannot post without rubbishing someone, and that is what the group
knows. Anything else to say on topic?
> Or disagree with it,
> or that the 'above' relates to the thread chronology?
The word "amateur" did not appear in this thread until you placed it
there yourself, Phil. A simple use of your computer's ctrl-F function
will verify this for you.
**I see you snipped what 'everybody knows' yet again - that you pretended to
be 500 points higher than you were. pfft! Kindly return on-topic, or spare
us your further angst.
Do you understand the Dr. yet, dearie? This is usenet, and the last speaker
is always right, right! See if you can concentrate on the chess rather than
other commentators, eh? Just try it.
PI
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 05:56:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 20, 8:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 17, 8:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dr. Phil:
>
> Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
> nearly-an-IM title? ;-)
>
> **Obviously, dear.
That's what I thought. In what discipline?
> I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
> saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
> opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
> very human aspect of chess, which Krabb=E9 celebrates. There is nothing
> wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
> presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
> moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
> factors a computer can never appreciate.
> **I am not sure I like the use of the word 'amateur' in the above,
Um, Phil? The word "amateur" did not appear in my post. Now we know
what your doctorate is in: dyslexia!
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:15:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 20, 8:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 17, 8:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dr. Phil:
>
> Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
> nearly-an-IM title? ;-)
>
> **Obviously, dear.
That's what I thought. In what discipline?
Dr. = dear. Geddit? I mean, do you geddit yet? 3 times and your....
zzzzzzzzz
> I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
> saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
> opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
> very human aspect of chess, which Krabb� celebrates. There is nothing
> wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
> presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
> moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
> factors a computer can never appreciate.
> **I am not sure I like the use of the word 'amateur' in the above,
Um, Phil? The word "amateur" did not appear in my post. Now we know
what your doctorate is in: dyslexia!
Does this mean that you did not use the term yourself? Or disagree with it,
or that the 'above' relates to the thread chronology? How come you mock real
chess players with your trivia, while cutting out the non-trivial boost of
your own rating by 500 points!!
Try to write on topic, and not trivialise everything to your own level of
missaprehension.
Phil Innes
ps: we dyslexics say lysdexia, please nake a mote of it.
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 10:05:36
From: Andrew B.
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On 19 Sep, 02:59, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 12:36 pm, "Andrew B." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Dutch GM Tim Krabbe comp=EFled website with
> > > > "110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"
>
> > > > We did computerevaluations of all of them.
> > > > Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
> > > > Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY li=
ke RJF
> > > > did.
> > > > Amazing.
>
> > > > Greetings from Amsterdam.
>
> > > > Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com
>
> > > Many of these have the loser missing the best defense
> > > by a country mile, so the attack looks better than it really
> > > is. For instance, in the game where White plays Qxh7+
> > > Qxh7, g6, Black could have just defended with ...Ra7 and
> > > reached an ending where he is just barely losing, the same
> > > as before the sac'.
>
> > 39. ... Ra7, 40. gxh7+ Kxh7, 41. Rg7+ Rxg7, 42. hxg7+ Kg6, 43. Rh8
> > seems to win easily - what am I missing?
>
> Okay, now I have the position on screen again and
> can tell you precisely why I was not very impressed
> by this particular example (number ten of How to
> Fool Fritz).
>
> The Web site has the writer claiming that Fritz spots
> Mr. Bischoff's Qxh7 "in a flash". and so does my
> program. Yet even after thinking "forever" the computer
> gives White a smaller edge than he had earlier in the
> game, after correct defense. Something has gone
> awry, and the writer traces this back to earlier errors.
>
> Like me, he is using a computer to spot where the big
> shifts in position score have taken place, but I would
> not agree that 29. ...Nxe6 was the root of the problem;
> to the contrary, Black was horribly cramped, and his
> one-way-in attack along the a-file is no match for what
> White had on the other wing in conjunction with the
> l-o-n-g diagonal. In any case, here is what my
> machine thinks is best play for both sides, and the
> scores, which to me are less than impressive for such
> a "fantastic" move and such a huge space advantage
> with such a nice attack:
>
> 1. Qxh7+!! Qxh7+
>
> 2. g6 Ra7!
>
> 3. gxh7+ Kxh7
>
> 4. Rg7+ Rxg7
>
> 5. hxg7 Kg6 (+1.25)
>
> Note that after all that White did in this game, after
> all his efforts, he is not yet Queening his pawn, and
> there are opposite-colored Bishops so hope of
> escaping with a draw still survive.
>
> Now let's have a look at your move, using my move
> numbers above:
<moves below corrected for clarity >
> 6. Rh8 Kf7
>
> Where is the "easy" win?
I now see what I was missing - posting in a hurry, I thought after 7.
Rxe8 Kxe8 White could safely queen his g-pawn... apologies for wasting
your time.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 11:38:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
Here is a little "reply to just criticism." [I took the Dr. for 'Dear', BTW,
though don't get the Oprah thing !?] PI
----
"dr" Phil/Chess One:
We - Editor B.Pascha et moi of www.howtofoolfritz.com- saw that you posted
the Tim Krabbe-note on 110 most fantastic moves in a forum and we read the
replys. All right Krabbe is not be a GM and ""dr"" Phil was meant jokingly
alluding to Oprah W. and I hoped your readers got that.
As for nr.10 Bischoff-Nogueiras I stand corrected by Bruno the Baenst,
Help Bot, Taylor Kingston, Sanny and Andrew B. Indeed black resigned too
early.
The velous nr.2 Topalov-Shirov I think still is a dazzling Swindle. 1-
Bh3!? and not Topalov's 2.gh3? but 2. Kf2! secures a draw never mind one
reader posting 2. -Bg2 as a black win. I think that one is a draw too.I'll
be happy to see Shirov win that one.
More important is that from the computerevaluation of TK-110 it appears
what a true human "Fantastic Move" is in my view: it is a move -or a
sequence of 2 or 3- that gives a decisive turn of events to a game that can
NOT be spotted by chess machines. And finding this type of move is crucial
in the problem of man-vs.-machine chess.And so far even great players like
Kasparov and Kramnik were not able to deal with this problem adequately. One
day they will, though, after getting the message of How to Fool Fritz.
As usual I have problems with user names and passwords and so on, maybe you
would be so kind again to post my answer in this particular forum?
Greetings form Amsterdam, Albert H. Alberts.
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 18:59:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 18, 12:36 pm, "Andrew B." <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > Dutch GM Tim Krabbe comp=EFled website with
> > > "110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"
>
> > > We did computerevaluations of all of them.
> > > Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
> > > Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like=
RJF
> > > did.
> > > Amazing.
>
> > > Greetings from Amsterdam.
>
> > > Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com
>
> > Many of these have the loser missing the best defense
> > by a country mile, so the attack looks better than it really
> > is. For instance, in the game where White plays Qxh7+
> > Qxh7, g6, Black could have just defended with ...Ra7 and
> > reached an ending where he is just barely losing, the same
> > as before the sac'.
>
> 39. ... Ra7, 40. gxh7+ Kxh7, 41. Rg7+ Rxg7, 42. hxg7+ Kg6, 43. Rh8
> seems to win easily - what am I missing?
Okay, now I have the position on screen again and
can tell you precisely why I was not very impressed
by this particular example (number ten of How to
Fool Fritz).
The Web site has the writer claiming that Fritz spots
Mr. Bischoff's Qxh7 "in a flash". and so does my
program. Yet even after thinking "forever" the computer
gives White a smaller edge than he had earlier in the
game, after correct defense. Something has gone
awry, and the writer traces this back to earlier errors.
Like me, he is using a computer to spot where the big
shifts in position score have taken place, but I would
not agree that 29. ...Nxe6 was the root of the problem;
to the contrary, Black was horribly cramped, and his
one-way-in attack along the a-file is no match for what
White had on the other wing in conjunction with the
l-o-n-g diagonal. In any case, here is what my
machine thinks is best play for both sides, and the
scores, which to me are less than impressive for such
a "fantastic" move and such a huge space advantage
with such a nice attack:
1. Qxh7+!! Qxh7+
2. g6 Ra7!
3. gxh7+ Kxh7
4. Rg7+ Rxg7
5. hxg7 Kg6 (+1.25)
Note that after all that White did in this game, after
all his efforts, he is not yet Queening his pawn, and
there are opposite-colored Bishops so hope of
escaping with a draw still survive.
Now let's have a look at your move, using my move
numbers above:
5. hxg7 Rh8
6. Kf7
Where is the "easy" win? Don't forget that although
White has a *very* dangerous passed pawn on the
seventh rank, Black has one of his own, though not
so far advanced, and there are opposite-colored
Bishops. This looks more like a problematic win to
me; something like the example where GM Anand
won as White in a Ruy Lopez with Rxh4, but only
after his opponent decided he was not struggling to
draw but going for a win, though a piece behind!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 14:44:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 18, 12:36 pm, "Andrew B." <[email protected] > wrote:
> 39. ... Ra7, 40. gxh7+ Kxh7, 41. Rg7+ Rxg7, 42. hxg7+ Kg6, 43. Rh8
> seems to win easily - what am I missing?
I don't know exactly, not having the position on screen
now. My computer saw that as "best play" for both
sides, and gave White the edge -- but not a very big one.
My take was that perfect technique carries the day, but
then, as Black had erred much earlier, White was winning
before the sac; as we saw, the attack on the a-file is
nothing next to White's devastating attack on the other
wing. To put it another way, if you tell Fritz he cannot
play that sac on h7, he will still say White is doing fine.
In fact, I may try this if I can find a function that makes
the program display its second-best move; or I can
watch carefully and spot it on-the-fly.
When I said that someone is "barely winning", all I
meant here was that my computer thinks the score is
reasonably close, after a good, long think. Nobody is
getting mated, and no one has to give up a Rook to
stop a pawn from Queening. According to my computer's
analysis, most of these games have serious errors in the
defense which provided aid and assistance to the enemy.
As the saying goes, it is easier to attack than to defend
because the defender must anticipate every possible
attack (including ones the attacker never imagined).
This is relevant because in making their choices, a sac'
which lost because of a later blunder would be rejected,
while one which won, though unsound, obviously was
not. One site critiqued the other for including a piece
hang by GM Spassky, and without bothering to enter
the position in Fritz, it was plain as day that such a
move could be nothing more, though it passed that
fellow's (I don't recall offhand which site was which)
selection process!
Let's go at this another way: if I put this into Fritz
and he says White has a 2 point advantage, then
after your line above he still says White has two
points more, what exactly was the hullabaloo about?
White getting himself into a fix where only the Queen
sac' would maintain his position? This reminds me
of the "shower of gold" game of Frank shall; how
on earth did he get himself into such a fix that he had
to find that move? Wasn't he just winning earlier?
Mightn't he have resigned had he not found his
famous ...Qg3? My guess is the annotators would
have never imagined such a move could exist, and
would attribute his "loss" to the earlier fumbling.
One fellow stated flatly that even a cow could spot
the Qxh7 sac'; but I think he was wrong. Even so,
the game was lost earlier, not on account of this one
"fantastic" move.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 14:39:25
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 18, 9:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Dr. Phil:
>
> Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
> nearly-an-IM title? ;-)
After mastering the little-known Andean language, Mr.
Innes took his doctorate at the Sorbonne; he had to take
it, you see, because they would not give it to him.
> > Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com
>
> It would not surprise me at all if several, or even many, of
> Krabb=E9's featured games/combinations/moves turned out to have sub-
> optimal play, or could even be refuted. The point is not that they are
> the "110 most accurate chess moves ever," but that they are the most
> fantastic, in the true sense of the word, i.e. belonging to the realm
> of fantasy. They are the moves Krabb=E9 considers the most imaginative,
One of these had Boris Spassky moving a Knight
en prise for no apparent reason. Fantastic? Or just
lame? How many other selections were wacky?
> and most importantly for the human aspect of chess, the most
> surprising. While suprise is meaningless to a computer program, to a
> human player it carries a force far beyond the objective merits of the
> move.
I think it is because these moves are hyped all over
as being so great that they have called attention to
themselves; what Gary Kasparov termed "the test of
time" has now arrived.
> I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
> saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
> opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
> very human aspect of chess, which Krabb=E9 celebrates. There is nothing
> wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
> presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
> moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
> factors a computer can never appreciate.
Perhaps courage is a factor when the player is weak,
and cannot begin to fathom the variations but still plays
a "fantastic" move knowing full well that his Class C
prize is on the line. But most of these guys were
grandmasters, and well able to at least partially grasp
the ramifications; how many of "Dutch GM" Krabbe's
selections were born of courage, and how many of
recklessness or the pursuit of brilliancy prizes, we may
never know.
Where I play, there are players who consistently
attempt to play "brilliant" games just for the sake of
hoping to be thought of as a brilliant chess player;
most of them are wild "attackers", meaning they will
attack when they should, as well as when they should
not, and even when they ought to be defending or
packing up the pieces and going home.
In rgc, there is Sam Sloan, who singlehandedly
defends Damiano's Defense unaware that it died many
years ago. Perhaps he feels this gains attention,
notoriety.
In a recent Chess Life magazine, one article celebrated
an NM's nearly-a-victory over a grandmaster via multiple
piece sacrifices; but to me, his inability to finish the job
brings doubts, such as why did he leave the board after
nearly every move? Where did he go, and who did he talk
to (about his game)? I have seen far too much to just
naively accept that he envisioned the entire attack, yet
lacked the ability to convert when things got easy.
A little while back, Sanny asked me if I had just hung
my Rook against his program, and I explained that no,
I got the idea from this game in Chess Life and it was
a deliberate, calculated sacrifice. So how does the guy
in Chess Life explain where he got his idea from? He
tells us that in spite of his 2200+ rating, he is basically
a GM in the middle game (who is also good in the
opening and good in endings). Right. It could never be
that maybe he got some "help", as young Mr. Botvinnik
did when he defeated GM Capablanca in a simul.
To me, true brilliance is not demonstrated in finding
these one-movers insomuch as it is in a game which
demonstrates a grand strategy. These deep thinkers
conceptualize entire crusades, not merely a single,
deadly blow in one battle -- impressive as it might be.
To use a common phrase: my proof is that Frank
shall found ...Qg3!!!, yet he lost 0-7 to positional
players and counter-punchers. That move, in effect,
only exists because of a lack of technique which
brought him to the brink of defeat.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 10:36:59
From: Andrew B.
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On 18 Sep, 11:21, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 7:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dr. Phil:
>
> > Dutch GM Tim Krabbe comp=EFled website with
> > "110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"
>
> > We did computerevaluations of all of them.
> > Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
> > Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like R=
JF
> > did.
> > Amazing.
>
> > Greetings from Amsterdam.
>
> > Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com
>
> Many of these have the loser missing the best defense
> by a country mile, so the attack looks better than it really
> is. For instance, in the game where White plays Qxh7+
> Qxh7, g6, Black could have just defended with ...Ra7 and
> reached an ending where he is just barely losing, the same
> as before the sac'.
39. ... Ra7, 40. gxh7+ Kxh7, 41. Rg7+ Rxg7, 42. hxg7+ Kg6, 43. Rh8
seems to win easily - what am I missing?
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 09:30:40
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
Computers will rule over Humans one day, This is just the beginning.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 07:47:17
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 17, 8:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dr. Phil:
Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
nearly-an-IM title? ;-)
> Dutch GM Tim Krabbe comp=EFled website with
> "110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"
>
> We did computerevaluations of all of them.
> Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
> Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
> did.
> Amazing.
>
> Greetings from Amsterdam.
>
> Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com
It would not surprise me at all if several, or even many, of
Krabb=E9's featured games/combinations/moves turned out to have sub-
optimal play, or could even be refuted. The point is not that they are
the "110 most accurate chess moves ever," but that they are the most
fantastic, in the true sense of the word, i.e. belonging to the realm
of fantasy. They are the moves Krabb=E9 considers the most imaginative,
and most importantly for the human aspect of chess, the most
surprising. While suprise is meaningless to a computer program, to a
human player it carries a force far beyond the objective merits of the
move.
I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
very human aspect of chess, which Krabb=E9 celebrates. There is nothing
wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
factors a computer can never appreciate.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 12:20:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 17, 8:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dr. Phil:
Hmmm, has our Phil been claiming a doctorate in addition to his
nearly-an-IM title? ;-)
**Obviously, dear. Please mention it for the next 5 years since one tends to
run out of off-topical abuse; and actual wit is harder to come by, neh? As
for nearly... another 50 points... [and some shoring up, surely], which is
rather different than boosting your rating 500 points, eh? If I did that I
would be a super-GM that would put GK in the shade.
I can't lay my hands on the exact quote, but I recall Tartakower
saying something to the effect that making a strong move against your
opponent is good, but it is even better to surprise him. This is a
very human aspect of chess, which Krabb� celebrates. There is nothing
wrong with subjecting these games to computer analysis, but the
presence of errors does not diminish the amazing nature of these
moves, nor the courage of those who played them - two purely human
factors a computer can never appreciate.
**I am not sure I like the use of the word 'amateur' in the above, but
letting that pass, it was Tal who said it best, since he said so little!
Instead he indicated OTB that he would confound you, and ani ol' ful could
sort out some theoretical refutation, given a few hours, days weeks,
months... But that is not chess! What we got in these moves, as chess can
sponsor them, is the genius of necessity.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 18 Sep 2007 03:21:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
On Sep 17, 7:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Dr. Phil:
>
> Dutch GM Tim Krabbe comp=EFled website with
> "110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"
>
> We did computerevaluations of all of them.
> Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
> Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
> did.
> Amazing.
>
> Greetings from Amsterdam.
>
> Albert H. Alberts, updated websitewww.howtofoolfritz.com
Many of these have the loser missing the best defense
by a country mile, so the attack looks better than it really
is. For instance, in the game where White plays Qxh7+
Qxh7, g6, Black could have just defended with ...Ra7 and
reached an ending where he is just barely losing, the same
as before the sac'.
One game had a very young Boris Spassky just moving a
Knight en prise, which shows that you must look beyond
the surface in determining what is "fantastic" (just as with
GM Soltis' book which included at least one obvious
blunder as a "brilliancy").
Not all of GM Fischer's games measure up; I was
reading Chess Life and replaying the games on screen,
and he missed several faster wins which Fritz could see
quite easily; in fact, that particular game was played
very poorly by GM Spassky.
What I don't quite grasp is what this next guy means by:
" the third run Fritz smells the rat for Topalov and simply refuses
the
bishop! It goes 1- Bh3!? 2.Kf2! Kf5 3. Kf3 Bg4+ 4. Ke3 and keeps on
driving
black crazy with useless knight moves I thought there was hope for
mankind
in this one, but not in this case. A SWINDLE, Mr.Shirov but a nice
one and
it took three runs for Fritz to understand."
What is a "third run" in Fritz? Did he perhaps set the
program to analyze entire games at ten seconds per move,
then one minute, and then, finally, ten minutes per move?
He talks of "useless knight moves" but in the diagram there
is no Knight to be found. (A lot of hullabaloo over nothing;
I believe GM Shirov was two pawns ahead in that game, so
whether or not this particular trick worked he was likely to
win eventually anyhow.)
One diagram had someone playing Q-g7 in a Najdorf
Sicilian, but what struck me was how deep these lines
are memorized by-rote, just to get that far without any
deviation by either side. I find that in my games, once
the book is left behind the blunders crash the party and
try to take over completely.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 22:32:05
From: bruno de baenst
Subject: Re: How To Fool Fritz, but not Fischer
|
" the third run Fritz smells the rat for Topalov and simply refuses the
bishop! It goes 1- Bh3!? 2.Kf2! Kf5 3. Kf3 Bg4+ 4. Ke3 and keeps on driving
black crazy with useless knight moves I thought there was hope for mankind
in this one, but not in this case. A SWINDLE, Mr.Shirov but a nice one and
it took three runs for Fritz to understand."
Eum, 3. Bxg2+ wins easily with same idea as in the game no need for fritz to
see that.. And the list of Tim Krabbe (who is no gm) is about the "most
amazing" moves and spasskys move is pretty amazing, the sacrifice isn't
supposed to be correct.
"Chess One" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:SeuHi.4586$6B2.1246@trndny04...
> Dr. Phil:
>
> Dutch GM Tim Krabbe comp�led website with
> "110 MOST FANTASTIC CHESS MOVES EVER"
>
> We did computerevaluations of all of them.
> Topalov-Shirov and Spasski-Bronstein refuted.
> Fritz/Rybka play the "Game of the Century" Byrne-Fischer EXACTLY like RJF
> did.
> Amazing.
>
> Greetings from Amsterdam.
>
> Albert H. Alberts, updated website www.howtofoolfritz.com
>
>
>
|
|
