| Dec-05-04 | | who: I ran this game through Fritz and there seem to be a ton of errors in the play (error being defined as the existance of a move which is at least a half pawn better in Fritz's opinion). In any event this is certainly a crazy game.
Here is what I have.
12.Qg2? better is Qf3
15...e5? better is Qf4
16.f4?? better is Nd5
19...Qh4? better is Qg5
20...Nc6? better is Rc8+
21.Rxe6?? better is b3 |
|
Dec-05-04
 | | Willem Wallekers: <error being defined as the existance of a move which is at least a half pawn better in Fritz's opinion>
Sounds more the definition of a computer error. |
|
| Dec-05-04 | | uglybird: I think any evaluation less than 1.00 should be first considered a difference of opinion instead of an error. 12.Qg2, for example, is a pawn sacrifice in which the computer is just counting numbers and not seeing Kasparov's positional compensation. |
|
Dec-05-04
| | Willem Wallekers: <difference of opinion >
I think I agree with uglybird, and when it comes to opinions on long term strategy, I put more confidence in Gazza and Moro then in Fritz. |
|
| Dec-05-04 | | who: My main point was to highlight an interesting game. However, there does come a point where you might want to consider the fact that GMs made a mistake. Fritz gives 18...Qg5 as leaving Moro 1.4 pawns up (as opposed to the move played which brings the advantage down to a 0.5 pawns), 20...Qxa2 as an equal position (-0.1, whereas Moro's Nc6 leaves Moro 1.1 pawns down) and 21.Rxe6 is Kaspy clearly settling for a forced draw by repition instead of cashing in on his advantage. I would be surprised if Fritz has misevaluated the position by that much. That being said I have seen Fritz think one side is more than 3 pawns up in a dead drawn position, though I don't remember one offhand, but in RvsR+N (clearly a draw) Fritz gives the R+N an advantage of more than a pawn. |
|
| Dec-05-04 | | who: Here is a better one. White has a king on h2 and knights on f3 and e4. Black has a pawn on h3 and king on g8. This is a dead draw, but Fritz thinks white is winning by more than 2 pawns. |
|
| Dec-19-04 | | enigmaticcam: What in the world is going on in this game? It's like both players are throwing away pieces like crazy. |
|
| Jan-24-05 | | Flyboy216: <enigmaticcam> That's why it's fun looking over games played by 2800s. We only *think* we know what's going on :) |
|
| Jan-25-05 | | ughaibu: So does Fritz. |
|
| Jan-25-05 | | siu02jm: Moro should have won this game, or am i missing something? |
|
| Jul-25-05 | | waddayaplay: Yes Moro could have won, according to his own annotations in Informator 78. Maybe it is something psychological, he doesn't feel ready to take the step as a world class player yet? What do I know... (I think this is proof that Moro can actually win against the "big names" which some claim he can't) Moro agrees with most of the evaluations of Fritz above. Especially he gives his own 18th move a ?? , claiming Qg5 would have been  . |
|
| Jul-25-05 | | DP12: Analysing sacrificial positions with a computer is a fantastic wake up call often. When you just can't make it change its mind, than you probably have given away too much. Alot of times though if you figure out the right way to develop your iniative, you can play just 3 or four more move in the computer and it will say "oh! I understand now!" I wonder how far down the line Kasparov saw when he allowed black to take on g2. What is his decision making process when he plays these intuitive sacrifices. Everthing seems so forced from black and Qg5 does seem winning so it seems strange that he would have went for this line. What does the computer think about Nd5? You cannot trust it blindly, but it is not stupid either. It could be better for white,correct? I guess something like Nd5 Qe2 Nf6+ Kg7 Be2 Kf6 f4 Nc6 f:e5 and then I guess Ke7 and then maybe Be1!? is strong? Of course I suck,especially without a board, and can in no way compete with either comp nor genius. |
|
Jun-06-15
 | | plang: Black often plays 8..Bxc3+ 9 bxc..Qa5 breaking up Whites queenside but White had been scoring well in that line leading to rise in popularity in 8..Qa5 as Morozovich played. 9..Qc5 was played in the draw Topalov-J.Polgar Wijk-aan Zee 1998; 9..0-0 was new. Kasparov would have had some edge after 12 Qf3 but instead played the sharp sacrifice 12 Qe2!?. Morozovich found the best defense 14..g6!; Gallagher provided a variation that gives some idea of the tactics in the position: 14..e5 15 Rxg7+..Kxg7 16 Rg1+..Kh8 17 Bxe5..Qh4 18 Qh5!..Qf4+! 19 Ne3..Nbd7 20 Bc3..b6 21 Bd3..h6 22 h4! with the idea of Rg5! and White has a large advantage. Kasparov's additional sacrifice 16 f4? was not justified; probably best was 16 Nd5..Qxe2 17 Nxf6+..Kg7 18 Bxe2..Kxf6 19 f4 when White probably does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn. Morozovich felt that he missed his chance when he played 18..Qh4? recommending instead 18..Qg5 19 h4..Qxh4 20 Rh1..Qa4 21 Bb5..Qe4! with a winning advantage. Instead White won a piece and was better though with 21 Rxe6?! he seemed to be playing for a draw; instead he could have tried 21 b3..Qa3+ 22 Kb1 (note that 21..Bxb3 22 axb..Qa1+ 23 Bb1..Rac8 24 Qb2..Nd4 25 Nc4 should be winning for White) with advantage. |
|
Kibitzing
