|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-24-09 | | johnlspouge: An overnight run of Toga indicates little progress from 17 to 29 plies. Humans can improve near the end of the complete computer variation. [ply 17/40 time 00:14 value (to White) -1.11]
31.Bf3 Rc7 32.f5 Bxf5 33.Bxh5 Rd7 34.Be2 e5 35.g4 Be6 36.h5 Rd8 37.Ne4 Rg8 38.Nf2 f5 39.gxf5 Bxf5 40.Bf3 Rh8 41.a4 Ra8 42.Be4 Bxe4 43.Kxe4 Rxa4+ 44.Kxe5 [ply 29/60 time 3:16:39 value (to White) -1.17]
31.Bf3 Rc7 32.Be2 Kf8 33.Bf3 Rd7 34.Be2 e5 35.Bb5 Rd6 36.Be2 Kg7 37.Nb5 Rd8 38.Nc3 Kh6 39.Bb5 Bf5 40.Ne4 Kg7 41.Be2 exf4+ 42.Kxf4 Bg6 43.Kf3 Rd4 44.Nc3 Rd2 45.b4 Bf5 46.Kf4 Against Yudasin, maybe wisdom is the better part of valor... |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | VincentL: I only have a short time to look at this "very difficult" position. White's QR and QN are hunched up in the corner, seemingly for a Q side attack that has not quite materialised. Perhaps the first move is 16.....Rfc8 (I prefer this to Rac8 because of the possibility of the white c pawn ending up on a7). However the more I look at the position the more I like 16....Bxc5. This is the most forcing move. Now 17. Bxc5 Nxc5 and black is threatening 17... Nb3+ winning a rook. If black plays 18. Kf1 then 18....Ne3+ and the white queen will be lost. So it must be 18 Kh1 Now maybe 18.... Rac8 is the best continuation.
I don't have time for more today. Let's see how this worked out. |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | zanshin: <dzechiel: This game ended in a draw?! What say our silicon monsters?> Rybka 3 on final position:
click for larger view [-1.77] d=22 31.Bf3 Rb8 32.Ke2 Bf7 33.Kf2 f5 34.Ke3 Be8 (0:08.58) 30948kN |
|
Oct-24-09
 | | Jimfromprovidence: If black saw after 16 dxc5 all the way through 20 axb3? being no good below, then he should have kept on playing.
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | David2009: <johnlspouge: An overnight run of Toga indicates little progress from 17 to 29 plies. [snip] [ply 17/40 time 00:14 value (to White) -1.11]
31.Bf3 Rc7 32.f5 Bxf5 33.Bxh5 Rd7 34.Be2 e5 35.g4 Be6 36.h5 Rd8 37.Ne4 Rg8 38.Nf2 f5 39.gxf5 Bxf5
40.Bf3 Rh8 41.a4 Ra8 42.Be4 Bxe4 43.Kxe4 Rxa4+ 44.Kxe5>
click for larger view
We can safely adjudicate Toga's final position (-1.11) as hopelessly lost for White after 45...Rh4 etc. A Pawn and the exchange
down, White has no chance of saving this clear-cut position. Black methodically advances K, R and front P until the
moment is ripe to give up the R for N+P after which all reasonable Pawn endings are easily won. Toga's second position <[ply 29/60 time 3:16:39 value (to White) -1.17]>
is much less clear-cut. Black is winning, but White is stll in there. Yet the evaluation is worse for White
(-1.17) 
click for larger view
Black to play 46...? |
|
Oct-24-09
 | | playground player: I don't mean to give offense to anyone here, but I can't see it as quite kosher to be analyzing these puzzles with computers. The players in the actual game didn't have that luxury. What is gained by computer analysis, to outweigh sapping the habit of on-the-spot independent thinking that one needs to win games OTB? Don't anybody blow a gasket. I'm asking because I really want to know. |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | WhiteRook48: I did ...QD6?? because after all, it said "Very Difficult..." |
|
Oct-24-09
 | | chrisowen: I got up to Bxc5 Bxc5 Nxc5 queen moves but then missed the knight's dream square b3. I found it just beyond my horizon as the succession of images is leeping one too far. |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | sfm: <playground player: I don't mean to give offense to anyone here, but I can't see it ... with computers. ... What is gained by computer analysis, to outweigh sapping the habit of on-the-spot independent thinking that one needs to win games OTB?> Well, I am happy when somebody post analysis, simply because the computers are very strong, and I am interested in getting an evaluation of my own ideas. "Knowing the truth". Today is a good example. White is down an exchange, but a convincing plan for Black is not easy to find. The computers can come up with suggestions on a high level. |
|
Oct-24-09
 | | patzer2: <playground player> Few if any of our regulars start out with computer analysis. However, it serves as a good check and time saver after we've exhausted human analysis. Computers not infrequently find wins missed by human analysis, and analyzing those wins helps improve human play. That's a key reason professional Chess players find them indispensible in doing analysis of their own games as well as those of their opponents. |
|
Oct-24-09
| | patzer2: Speaking of computer analysis, I wonder what our silicon helpers have to say about the discussion of 18. Kh1 versus 18. Qb5. So does anyone care to post a deep ply analysis of 16. Bxc5? |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | wals: Leonid Yudasin - Rafael Furdzik, Manhattan Chess Club Club Championship 2000
click for larger viewAnalysis by Rybka 3 1-cpu:
1.  (-#3): 70.Ka3 Qc1+
2. (-#2): 70.Ka1 Qb1# |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | wals: Leonid Yudasin - Rafael Furdzik, Manhattan Chess Club Club Championship 2000 Analysis by Rybka 3 1-cpu: ply 19 time 7 min 5
1. (-1.65): 16...Bxc5 17.Bxc5 Nxc5[] 18.Qb5 Nb3+[] 19.Qxb6[] axb6 20.Nc3 Nxa1 21.Rxa1[] Rfd8 22.Kf2 Nh6 23.h3 Bd3 24.Re1 Nf5 25.Bd1 Rac8 26.g4 2.  (0.75): 16...Qxb2 17.Nbd2 Rfc8 18.Rab1 Qa3[] 19.Rb3 Qa5 20.Rxb7 Bxc5[] 21.Kg2 Qd8 22.Rxd7 Qxd7 23.Bxc5[] Ne3+[] 24.Bxe3[] Rxc4[] 25.Nxc4 Rc8 26.Kf2 Bd3 27.Rd1 Rxc4[] 28.Rxd3 Qc8 29.Bxa7 Rc2 30.Rd2 Rxd2 31.Nxd2 Qc2 |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | wals: Leonid Yudasin - Rafael Furdzik, Manhattan Chess Club Club Championship 2000 Analysis by Rybka 3 1-cpu:
1. (-1.65): 18.Qb5 Nb3+
2. (-3.20): 18.Kh1 Ne4[] 19.Nc3 Nf2+[] 20.Kg1[] h4 21.gxh4 Nd3+[] 22.Kh1[] Qf2 23.Rf1 Ne3[] 24.Rxf2[] Nxf2+ 25.Kg1 Nh3+ 26.Kh1 Nxc4[] 27.Bxc4 Nxf4 28.Rg1 Bh5 29.Ne1 Rac8 30.Bf1 ) |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | David2009: <playground player: [snip] What is gained by computer analysis, to outweigh sapping the habit of on-the-spot independent thinking that one needs to win games OTB?> For me, it is practice in winning won positions - except that to start with I usually lose or draw them. The idea is to spot the right strategic plan, then win the position. Remember- "Crafty online" advertises itself as an END-GAME TRAINER. Crafty is also useful as a quick way of spotting flaws in the analysis that I post up-front: except that it is is often quicker to read the comments from fellow kibitzers. Today's puzzle is a good example. If I think the final position is won for Black (as I do) I should be able to beat Crafty with colours reversed. [The on-line link always plays Black]. By trial and error I can. But the real learning point is in spotting the combination of strategy and tactics needed to win. Crafty is much tougher to beat than most opponents I play against. I don't want to spoil people's pleasure, they can discover the win themselves. If they want to use a computer to help them - that is up to them. Link (colours reversed, Crafty defending): http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-t...
Enjoy! |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | gofer: Brute force and ignorance...
16 ... Bxc5 (winning the pawn back and threatening Bxf2+ winning) 17 Bxc5 Nxc5 (winning the bishop back and threatening Nb3+ winning) 18 Qxc5 Rac8! (the queen can't move off the a7-g1 diagonal and is about to be taken) 19 Qxb6 Rxc1+
20 Kf2 axb6
Now black is already an exchange up, is theatening Ne7 attacking Nb1, so Nb1 needs protecting... 21 Nfd2 Rd8 winning
21 Bd3 Rd8 winning
Time to check... |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | waustad: I expect the reason it was drawn is the difference in ratings. Perhaps a difference in time on the clock also came into play. |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | GaeBulg: Why did they draw here? Black was up a rook for a knight. |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | felixd: Black probably took no chance and offered the draw to a player who had 300+ rating points of more than him.... Who never did a such thing? lol |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | King.Arthur.Brazil: May I call you friends? Seldom I can come here, but here's my story on computers. I work on them everyday about last 30 years, and doing structural engineering, always the machine give-me a lot of possibilities, so I could chose the more simple, best to work, more safe, easy to build, etc. In chess, sometimes I work hard to beat my (old) Chessmaster 9000 simulating some masters, like SMYSLOV, RESHEVSKY, FLOOHR, but limiting their analysis to less then 10 sec, while I move forth and back several times. To catch some win (without using the master to my own position), is very very hard, a lot of time and trials. So, doing this, we can see the strong defence and resources from the oponnent, meanwhile, catch a better feeling of what can be best. All the wins came from the ending, where not even one combination from me did win, while positional advantages always came to be the defining reason from the game. So I guess that computers can show to you a lot of possibilitie and anwared situations, where we put attention looking for tatics, while position gives the best way to play. When alone, computer can feel my time completely, and win a game from Chesmaster (believe me or not) still makes me a little happy. |
|
Oct-24-09
| | patzer2: <Wals> Thanks for the Rybka 3 analysis of the puzzle. It's very instructive. |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | TheaN: Didn't get this one, at first, it's now 2:12 AM here :), and second, I didn't calculate everything. One minor question though, I try to improve stuff like this: 20....Nxa1 is better than 20....Nxc1, right? The latter just gets the second Rook of White into the game, whilst in the first situation it remains in the game, but has not yet captured the Knight. 21.Rxa1, or at any point in time, and the White Rook needs another move to get into the game. And rather getting captured or a1 or left alone on a1 opposed to being captured on c1. Correct? |
|
| Oct-24-09 | | johnlspouge: < <David2009> wrote: [snip] We can safely adjudicate Toga's final position (-1.11) as hopelessly lost for White after 45...Rh4 etc. [snip] > <Humans can improve near the end of the computer variation>. The computer valuation is usually a reasonable approximation of the value of the position, particularly when the valuation is stable over so many plies. |
|
| Oct-25-09 | | CHESSTTCAMPS: I'm getting a late look at this, but I'll post anyway, even though the solution has likely been explored thoroughly. A player who plays for space will at first glance much prefer the white position - he is a pawn up, has a strong grip on d6, controls key squares in the center with the adjacent bishops, and has no obvious weak square except perhaps b2. Therefore, I first looked at 16... Qb2, but after 17.N1d2, white is in great shape and black's queen has no obvious escape from enemy territory. However, there is in fact a serious white weakness that black can exploit mercilessly: the undeveloped Nb1 creates a back rank weakness. Black should play 16.... Bxc5!! 17.Bxc5 (forced) Nxc5 and now:
A) 18.Qxc5 Rac8 19.Qxb6 Rxc1+ 20.Kf2 axb6 and black, already an exchange up, will win easily with the pin on Nc1. B) 18.Kf1 (g2) Ne3+ wins
C) 18.Kh1 Ne3 19.Qd4 (forced!) Nc2 and white loses an exchange. D) 18.N1e2 Nb3+ and black wins an exchange and should win. Time to check. |
|
| Oct-26-09 | | zenpharaohs: OK I've had Rybka 3 cooking for a while on the final position. Rybka values -1.91 at depth 28 expecting 31. Bf3
although 31 Bd1 is valued at -1.90 at depth 27.
So White has a few alternatives of similar value, so we will not likely be able to make a very deep analysis of all the available lines; making it very hard to rule out an actual draw using an engine. However, using many hours to explore the likely lines, it seems that after a dozen moves or so, White is busted unless Black has blundered. So I assume White offered the draw after seeing that cashing in his advantage was going to mean playing precisely against a GM, possible with time pressure. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 