|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-04-06 | | Cogano: Would someone be good enough to tell me what threats are there &/or will there be for Short because of Shirov's 28th move, 28...Qd4+? Thanks much in advance. :) Cheers! :) |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | VargPOD: 19.Nxe4 looks like a serious mistake, leading to material loss. Or am I missing something? |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | iamverywellatchess: Alexi is a short man! LOOL! |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | Cogano: Hello <VargPOD> & I hope all is well. You're on the right track. But I think your argument is better applied to 20.Rxe4. 19.Nxe4 fxe4 was just a standard piece exchange, in my humble, ignorant opinion. Whereas 20.Rxe4 eventually led to 22.Rxe7. Black ends up having lost 2 knights & a pawn, while White lost a knight & a rook. If my arithmetic is right, Black leads by a full point: N(3) + N(3) + P(1) = 7 vs. N(3) + R(5) = 8. I hope this helps. :) Take very good care & have a great day. :) Cheers mate! :) |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | VargPOD: <Cogano>, 20.Rxe4 looks forced, because black is threatening both exf3 and Qxf4. I still think the mistake was 19.Nxe4. |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | outplayer: 12...Ne4!!? |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | outplayer: Shirov on KG |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | dakgootje: For the discussion about the last move: what about Nf2 Re3 30. Qd1 Rd3 (maybe with something like Rd2 and there might be some big problems for white)... Didnt check last position with Fritz, so if im somewhere terrible wrong, then thats the excuse ;-) |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | Marco65: <dakgootje> <what about 29.Nf2 Re3 30.Qd1 Rd3> 31.Qxd3 You're very welcome not to use Fritz, and publish wrong lines once in a while as I'm used to (in my case more than once in a while)! |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | Marco65: <Cogano> Surprisingly few chess players know that knights and bishops are worth a little more than 3, about 3.25, as finally proven by IM Kaufmann in 1999, therefore Black's advantage after the exchange is less than one pawn (positional considerations apart). Of course it's unimaginable that Short didn't calculate the loss of the exchange, but he might have overassessed the value of the attack resulting from the knight "discovery" 24.Ne3 |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | dakgootje: <Marco65> okay and after 29.Nf2 Re3 30.Qd1 Rd3> 31.Qxd3 Qxd3 ? =S |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | Cogano: Hello again <VargPOD> & I hope all is well. :) I guess you're right. & I guess what I said is what you get when someone is both sleep-deprived, as I always am, & acts too hastily! :) Thanks much for taking the time to point that out. :) Take very good care & have a great day. :) Cheers mate! :) Hello <Marco65> & I hope all is well. :) Thanks much for taking the time to inform me about that. :) I've only read a couple of beginner-level books & I'd never come across such values in any of them! As for Short over-assessing, for a player of his level, that was pretty lazy & presumptuous on his part. I think that any player, regardless of level & strength, should caluclate all combinations, captures etc. to the end, as accurately as possible & to go over them again at least once, if not twice, as time permits, of course. Thanks much again. :) Take very good care & have a great day. :) Cheers mate! :) |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | The17thPawn: <dakgootje> Doen't black lose his queen and a rook for a queen in that line? 32.Nxd3 |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | kevin86: Russian words/names are especially hard for some Westerners to say because the Slavic languages are so much different from Latin,the basis of most Western European languages. Germanic is closer,but still has an alphabet barrier between Latin and Cyrillic (GreeK) letters. Tsar and Czar are often used as the name of the former Russian leaders-both are from CAESAR. Czar is speeled like Caesar and sounds more like the Russian word;Tsar LOOKS more like the Russian word-the Cyrillic is close to TSAP. White revived ye olde king's gambit-and was thrashed withe it.(Do you like the olde Engishe?) lol |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | Marco65: <Cogano> This is the article most people ignore: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/danhe... Based on a million games, it has statistical evaluation of many material imbalances. Although some calculations are feasible only by computer programs (like the increase / decrease of bishop and knight values when the number of pawn on the board diminuishes) it has many valuable information. It is the first place where I found a convincing explanation of why exchanging a bishop and a knight for a rook and a pawn (that typically happens on f2/f7) is not such a good deal. It also established once and forever that knights and bishops are in average of the same value, and that the advantage that some text attributes to bishops over knights is biased by the advantage of the bishop pair (worth half a pawn!) |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | dakgootje: <The17thPawn:<dakgootje> Doen't black lose his queen and a rook for a queen in that line? 32.Nxd3> *Coughs* Ah..hmhm...next time im going to get a board again if i post something about some kind of analysis, make too many mistake without it ;-) |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | The17thPawn: <dakgootje> Totally understandable. I make many myself. By the way I still owe you some analysis in that Asrian game and hope to tackle it tonight or tomorrow. Look forward to hearing from you whatever the result. I apologize for the delay but other family obligations have kept me from consulting uncle Fritz. |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | Fulkrum: <Marco65 and Cogano>--Check out "Rethinking the Chess Pieces" by Soltis. GM Soltis goes through an in depth discussion on the value of pieces. So far it's a pretty good read. I'm not finished yet but I read the first two chapters. Soltis states in his book, "The further away from the endgame – where “endgame value” reigns – the more unreliable the (arithmatic) charts are. And that poses a problem for the tournament player." Dan Heisman reviews the book on Chessville.
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/R... |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | Granite: Interesting to note that Short has not beaten Shirov according to the database. A rather impressive record of 7 wins, 10 draws and no losses. |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | iamverywellatchess: That is incorrect. |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | PaulLovric: <Fulkrum: <Marco65 and Cogano>--Check out "Rethinking the Chess Pieces" by Soltis. GM Soltis goes through an in depth discussion on the value of pieces. So far it's a pretty good read. I'm not finished yet but I read the first two chapters. Soltis states in his book, "The further away from the endgame – where “endgame value” reigns – the more unreliable the (arithmatic) charts are. And that poses a problem for the tournament player."
Dan Heisman reviews the book on Chessville.
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/R...; yes a very good read |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | ganstaman: I haven't been following all the kibitzing here, but I do have one point to make. Why do we assign values to pieces? The reason, IMHO, is that we do this to help us evaluate a position. Positional factors are somewhat difficult to quantify, while pieces (at least at a basic level) are easier to quantify -- just give them all values and add it up. So after any series of exchanges, players often add up the remaining material (or more simply just count what was taken off) to see who is ahead. In this game and most games, however, that isn't enough. Things such as pawn structure matter a lot, as does king safety and piece activity. Look at the board at move 24. Ignoring any material inequalities, the position appears to favor black. The white king has few defenders while the black king has those 3 pawns to hide behind. The black rooks and queen are all sitting in front of the white king (imagine what that king must be thinking). Whatever the material adds up to, it appears to me that black is making more of his pieces, and is therefore far ahead. Interesting articles, by the way. They can definitely help make more accurate evaluations of positions. |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | iamverywellatchess: Chess men have values like persons do. A man who is a bad person might have a value of 1. The guard has a value of 12, but only if the horse has not disowned him! |
|
Apr-04-06
 | | al wazir: <iamverywellatchess>: Huh?? That might be clearer in your first language. |
|
| Apr-04-06 | | Cogano: Hello <Marco65> & I hope all is well. :) Thanks much for the article; I'll read it shortly (I just got online!). :) I agree. Alas, I had to learn about exchanging B & N for a R & P being a bad idea the hard way, through a game I had to resign! As for B & N being more or less equal, I totally agree. When I come across a book that says one is more valuable than the other, I think "Hogwash". Their relative value in general & compared with each other depends much on the posiion at hand, as well as other variables! Thanks again for the article & your explanations. :) Both are gratefully appreciated. Take very good care & have a great day. :) Cheers mate! :) Hello <Fulkrum> & I hope all is well. :) Thanks much for the book. :) I will certainly look for it. :) Take very good care & have a great day. :) Cheers mate! :) Hello <ganstaman> & I hope all is well. :) I totally agree. Just for the record, <VargPOD> & I started the piece value discussion when we were debating the game's 19th & 20th moves. I argued that Black was up in terms of the material exchange. Your argument just goes to further support the assertion that Black was better. The difference is that you're more knowledgeable than I am & that you argued more clearly & effectively than I did. & I would add that your argument is more relevant, if only because values are always changing (so a player's time would be better spent evaluating pawn structures..., as you said!)! Thanks much for that. :) Take very good care & have a great day. :) Cheers mate! :) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
