Draw?
Bill Newton
I was just running through game number 620 in the Fritz 5 Database
which was played between Tarrasch, playing the white pieces, and
Lasker, in 1908 at Munich.
The board position after 119 moves was :
White: Kf4: Rg2: Be5.
Black:Kh4: Rb3.
It was white to play, blacks last move was Kh4.
However at this stage the game is shown in the Database as a draw,
yet Fritz 5 analysis finds the fairly obvious win for white in seconds!
In fact the win is so obvious, even to me ( rabbit ) that I suspect the
Database shows either the result, or blacks last move, incorrectly.
Did Tarrasch really miss the mate, or am 'I' missing something?
I suspect the latter choice...but if anybody can throw light on the
matter by way of educating me........ :)
Regards.
--
Bill Newton
George R. Barrett
Weird. Looks like a mate in 7:
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1997.09.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "-"]
[Black "-"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "8/8/8/4B3/5K1k/1r6/6R1/8 w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
1. Rh2+ Rh3 2. Bf6+ Kh5 3. Rxh3+ Kg6 4. Ke5 Kf7 5. Kf5 Ke8 6. Ke6 Kf8
7. Rh8# {White mates} 1-0
--
_____________________________________________________________________
George R. Barrett
Electrical Engineering : Systems `` Without insight, method is
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor largely useless. ''
_____________________________________________________________________
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and
the depth of our answers." -- Carl Sagan
David Hanley
Bill Newton wrote:
> I was just running through game number 620 in the Fritz 5 Database
> which was played between Tarrasch, playing the white pieces, and
> Lasker, in 1908 at Munich.
>
> The board position after 119 moves was :
>
> White: Kf4: Rg2: Be5.
> Black:Kh4: Rb3.
>
> It was white to play, blacks last move was Kh4.
You mean rh2+ rh3 bf6+ kh5 rxh3+, etc? I suspect the database
gives the last wrong move, or tarrasch
had only a few seconds left, and couldn't win in time. Lasker was too
strong to fall into such a basic trap,
and tarrasch too strong to miss it,.
>
>
> However at this stage the game is shown in the Database as a draw,
> yet Fritz 5 analysis finds the fairly obvious win for white in
> seconds!
>
> In fact the win is so obvious, even to me ( rabbit ) that I suspect
> the
> Database shows either the result, or blacks last move, incorrectly.
>
> Did Tarrasch really miss the mate, or am 'I' missing something?
dave
ChessBase GmbH
Bill Newton wrote:
>
> I was just running through game number 620 in the Fritz 5 Database
> which was played between Tarrasch, playing the white pieces, and
> Lasker, in 1908 at Munich.
>
> The board position after 119 moves was :
>
> White: Kf4: Rg2: Be5.
> Black:Kh4: Rb3.
>
> It was white to play, blacks last move was Kh4.
>
> yet Fritz 5 analysis finds the fairly obvious win for white in seconds!
>
> In fact the win is so obvious, even to me ( rabbit ) that I suspect the
> Database shows either the result, or blacks last move, incorrectly.
>
> Did Tarrasch really miss the mate, or am 'I' missing something?
>
> matter by way of educating me........ :)
>
> Regards.
> --
> Bill Newton
If I remember it correctly, there was some kind of exotic rule that if
within a given number of moves no pawn advances and no piece gets
captured and the player doesn't light a cigar the game is declared a
draw. In this game 72.Kxf4 is the last capture.
--
Matthias
mailto:wuelle...@compuserve.com
http://www.chessbase.com
Please DO NOT mail to 'wuelle...@t-online.de' (dead letter box)
Ilias Kastanas
In article <thQGVRAd...@notwen.demon.co.uk>,
Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I was just running through game number 620 in the Fritz 5 Database
>which was played between Tarrasch, playing the white pieces, and
>Lasker, in 1908 at Munich.
>
>The board position after 119 moves was :
>
>White: Kf4: Rg2: Be5.
>Black:Kh4: Rb3.
>
>It was white to play, blacks last move was Kh4.
>
>However at this stage the game is shown in the Database as a draw,
>yet Fritz 5 analysis finds the fairly obvious win for white in seconds!
>
>In fact the win is so obvious, even to me ( rabbit ) that I suspect the
>Database shows either the result, or blacks last move, incorrectly.
>
The WK is on f5. Black's last move was ... Rb3.
Ilias
Bill Newton
In article <5vsjh0$r...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Ilias Kastanas <ikastan
@alumni.caltech.edu> writes
>In article <thQGVRAd...@notwen.demon.co.uk>,
>Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The board position after 119 moves was :
>>
>>White: Kf4: Rg2: Be5.
>>Black:Kh4: Rb3.
> The WK is on f5. Black's last move was ... Rb3.
See what you mean! Are you able to point me toward the 'correct'
game score as I'm keen to see how the position you state is
reached.
Secondly as a 'rabbit' I can ask the following question with impunity :
Is K+R+B v K+R not a forced win?
'I' really dont know, but I must assume that it isn't on the basis that
Tarrasch would surely have won the game had it been possible.
On the other hand, if a forced win with such material 'isn't' possibe
what was Tarrasch up to in playing on after move 73 at which time
only the afore mentioned pieces were available?
Can anybody clarify this situation for me?
I've given myself a headache now!
Regards.
--
Bill Newton
Rolf Tueschen
Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Here is the expert for all physical headaches, Bill.
Your truly Pope Rolf.
This spooky question of yours which is BTW by no means a special cc
related question but more a "misc" one -- was already answered by
friendly ChessBase commentary.
Look, Bill, as you already saw, the last pawn move, exchange, take was
on move 72 or 73 if I get it right. So, at 123 it's a draw. And the
right score therefore was a draw, because there's no way to mate/win
*before*.
All your insinuations, allegations are influenced by the so called Ed
Schroder virus epidemic. Whether Tarrasch was strong enough or
Lasker...?
In reality it's a question for the pope of archeological chess Mr. Pope.
What were the time schedules in those days and so on. Did they really
have the 50 moves rule?
Aside from all these historical questions you're right. The position as
such IS a win. Fritz gives a mate in 8 or some.
But that doesn't mean that the players of that times were too stupid to
see this.
Methinks that you mix up a special logic to come to such questions.
And Fritz in cb6, I must agree, doesn't know of repetitions and 50
move-rule.
If you go into the original Fritz5 and load the game and let analyse it
--- then of course Fritz sees the problem of 50 moves rule! I didn't
check it but saw it before with Fritz4. But the analyse engine in cb6 is
more a one concrete position to the point analysing tool. Although with
clicking for the 'tree' presentation you could save deep lines.
So, please come back to real cc related topics, Bill. There're enough
guys these days who abuse iusenet with talks about dongles of women and
size of dongles and other sex-related nonsense...
One famous expert (one Robert H.) also took part in these disgustful
off-topics. This is not to make your Pope a happy man, I tell you.
Yours truly Pope Rolfieje, the opponent of Ed Schroder's epidemic of
inventing fables and supporter of a free usenet and furthermore the real
center of truth, science, logic
<<Aghainst characterassassination and lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>
>Regards.
>--
>Bill Newton
Bill Newton
In article <5vu04k$3pn$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>, Rolf Tueschen
<TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> writes
'Missed the point' post from Rolf, I have elucidated via email.
--
Bill Newton
Howard Exner
Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<thQGVRAd...@notwen.demon.co.uk>...
> I was just running through game number 620 in the Fritz 5 Database
> which was played between Tarrasch, playing the white pieces, and
> Lasker, in 1908 at Munich.
>
> The board position after 119 moves was :
>
> White: Kf4: Rg2: Be5.
> Black:Kh4: Rb3.
>
> It was white to play, blacks last move was Kh4.
>
> However at this stage the game is shown in the Database as a draw,
> yet Fritz 5 analysis finds the fairly obvious win for white in seconds!
>
> In fact the win is so obvious, even to me ( rabbit ) that I suspect the
> Database shows either the result, or blacks last move, incorrectly.
>
> Did Tarrasch really miss the mate, or am 'I' missing something?
>
> I suspect the latter choice...but if anybody can throw light on the
> matter by way of educating me........ :)
I have the same game on my database of Lasker's games taken
off the internet. It is a mate in around eight moves but also given a draw
in my database. The last capture was on move 72 so that is not a
50 move draw. However as I played through the entire game I noticed
a 3-fold repetition way back on move 59 (or near there). That too seemed
weird.
Ilias Kastanas
In article <ZxYLRDA$SjI0...@notwen.demon.co.uk>,
Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5vsjh0$r...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Ilias Kastanas <ikastan
>@alumni.caltech.edu> writes
>>In article <thQGVRAd...@notwen.demon.co.uk>,
>>Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>White: Kf4: Rg2: Be5.
>>>Black:Kh4: Rb3.
>
>
>See what you mean! Are you able to point me toward the 'correct'
>game score as I'm keen to see how the position you state is
>reached.
>
>Secondly as a 'rabbit' I can ask the following question with impunity :
>Is K+R+B v K+R not a forced win?
>
>'I' really dont know, but I must assume that it isn't on the basis that
>Tarrasch would surely have won the game had it been possible.
>
>On the other hand, if a forced win with such material 'isn't' possibe
>what was Tarrasch up to in playing on after move 73 at which time
>only the afore mentioned pieces were available?
The game ended in Szen's drawing position; Lasker had had that,
or similar ones throughout the ending. There are a few other standard
draw patterns, and generally they cannot be avoided. Winning positions
also exist, usually with the BK on the edge and the WK in direct opposi-
tion. Both types can be intricate, requiring long sequences of exact
moves. So in practice the ending is typically played out.
Ilias
Rolf Tueschen
Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5vu04k$3pn$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>, Rolf Tueschen
><TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> writes
>>Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>White: Kf4: Rg2: Be5.
>>>>>Black:Kh4: Rb3.
>'Missed the point' post from Rolf, I have elucidated via email.
>--
>Bill Newton
May I just add that this statement is a crystal clear invention...? :)
The truth is Bill simply didn't elucidate anything.
Several people wrote about the 50 moves rule...
The Pope of all chess rules
Bill Newton
In article <5vrg5g$6l$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>, ChessBase GmbH
<Wuelle...@t-online.de> writes
>
>If I remember it correctly, there was some kind of exotic rule that if
>within a given number of moves no pawn advances and no piece gets
>captured and the player doesn't light a cigar the game is declared a
>draw. In this game 72.Kxf4 is the last capture.
Maybe so. But I doubt that Lasker could have played on to move 119
without lighting a cigar ! :))
So why was it a draw?
Regards.
-
Bill Newton
Bill Newton
In article <602l3b$42a$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>, Rolf Tueschen
>>'Missed the point' post from Rolf, I have elucidated via email.
>May I just add that this statement is a crystal clear invention...? :)
>The truth is Bill simply didn't elucidate anything.
Hi Rolf, sorry that you remain confused despite my email efforts to
point you in the right direction but......good news.....other readers
understood my original questions and made sensible efforts to
answer them.
So you need no longer worry about missing the point.
Cheers.
--
Bill Newton
ChessBase GmbH
Bill Newton wrote:
>
> So why was it a draw?
As far as I can see, Rolf Tueschen is right. Final position is mate in
eight but the 50 moves rule kicks in before that.
> -
> Bill Newton
Komputer Korner
R and B vs R is sometimes a win and sometimes a draw. You will have to
consult an endgame database for the particular case
you are talking about.
--
- -
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
If you see a 1 in my email address, take it out before replying.
Please do not email both me and the r.g.c.c. at the same time. I read all
the postings on r.g.c.c.
Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<OHgucBAW...@notwen.demon.co.uk>...
> More intriguing to me as a 'rabbit' is trying to discover whether
> K+R+B can in fact 'force' a win over K+R. I ask because I understand
> that modern chess laws have been amended after computer
> technology recently identified that the 50 move rule is inappropriate
> in certain scenarios. That makes me wonder whether K+R+B v K+R
> qualifies as such a scenario.
>
> In other words can mate be 'forced' albeit it takes 'more' than 50
> moves? If it can be forced, but only in 'more' than 50 moves, have
> modern chess laws been ammended accordingly?
>
> Meanwhile, my original question remains the same: 'If mate could
> have been forced ( within 50 moves at that time) why did Tarrasch
> not achieve it?
>
> If mate couldn't be forced, why did Tarrash continue to play on?
>
> Regards.
> --
> Bill Newton
>
Bill Newton
In article <6057sl$mj6$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>, ChessBase GmbH
<Wuelle...@t-online.de> writes
>As far as I can see, Rolf Tueschen is right. Final position is mate in
>eight but the 50 moves rule kicks in before that.
No, the 50 move rule observation is at best a shallow understanding
of the situation and the interpretation that you place upon it is
beyond belief bearing in mind the strength of Tarrasch.
Even so I think you'll find it's mate in seven.
But notwithstanding that, I feel sure the game score in the Fritz 5
Database is incorrect. I dont think that even a blind chessplayer, in
dire time trouble, hurtling past the board on a galloping horse would
have played blacks last recorded move of Kh4 :) !
brucemo
Bill Newton wrote:
> More intriguing to me as a 'rabbit' is trying to discover whether
> K+R+B can in fact 'force' a win over K+R. I ask because I understand
> that modern chess laws have been amended after computer
> technology recently identified that the 50 move rule is inappropriate
> in certain scenarios. That makes me wonder whether K+R+B v K+R
> qualifies as such a scenario.
The typical case is a draw. It's a hard draw though. There are a few
won cases that take more than 50 moves to convert.
This *was* the scenerio that made some people rethink the 50-move rule.
When it was discovered that some won positions were defined as draws
due to the 50-move rule, FIDE ammended its rules in order to allow more
moves in this ending, but the professional players were so upset about
this that they put things back.
KRN vs KR is an easier draw, by the way.
bruce
Rolf Tueschen
Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6057sl$mj6$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>, ChessBase GmbH
><Wuelle...@t-online.de> writes
>>As far as I can see, Rolf Tueschen is right. Final position is mate in
>>eight but the 50 moves rule kicks in before that.
>No, the 50 move rule observation is at best a shallow understanding
>of the situation
Bill, keep in mind, that you are strongly insulting me and most of all
-- my understanding. :)
>and the interpretation that you place upon it is
>beyond belief bearing in mind the strength of Tarrasch.
Proves that you don't understand the "difficulty" of such an ending.
>Even so I think you'll find it's mate in seven.
No, if you want/like it's both, depending of your counting mode. Key
move and then ... or all in all. :)
>But notwithstanding that, I feel sure the game score in the Fritz 5
>Database is incorrect. I dont think that even a blind chessplayer, in
>dire time trouble, hurtling past the board on a galloping horse would
>have played blacks last recorded move of Kh4 :) !
Bill, you dont want to cope with Prince Charles and beating a dead
horse?!
The point is that the move provokes the "click" on immediate draw
*because* it's mate in...
>More intriguing to me as a 'rabbit' is trying to discover whether
>K+R+B can in fact 'force' a win over K+R. I ask because I understand
>that modern chess laws have been amended after computer
>technology recently identified that the 50 move rule is inappropriate
>in certain scenarios. That makes me wonder whether K+R+B v K+R
>qualifies as such a scenario.
Bill, I hate it, but after being tortured for months with advices about
short and on to the point reasoning, I'm proud to be able to present my
spontaneous healing right now. Yes, I'm no longer willing to be defined
as "insane". :)
You're really as innocent as a newborn child. All related on chess of
course. Note, _I_ dont talk about redundancy.
The answer to your question is that's why the databases of Thompson were
so much appreciated in the eighties... *Because* it's often so
difficult to see for humans.
Take a look into the ENCYCL. of ENDINGS, and you'll see that even the
deepest analysis, uncriticised since decades, were turned upside down by
the databases... Your fellow countryman Nunn could tell you stories
about the details in more than one volume.
In a way it's a tragedy for Tarrasch, I agree, because he always thought
of the "true" and "best" move. The bases can exactly do that. But not
the praeceptor germaniae...
Rolf Tueschen
Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:
>Bill Newton wrote:
>> I feel sure the game score in the Fritz 5 Database is incorrect.
>That is certainly possible with an unannotated game. We'll have a look
>in the good old paper-library.
No need for, I have an annotated version from one of the many databases
from one certain version of an update...
BTW, sure, Tarrasch made some mistakes! If this debate will *never* end,
I'll post the true annotations. :)
But I'm too shy because it wouldn't be _off-topic_. :)
Yours Pope
PS
I hide it here. Yesterday after my very first draw against the new Fritz
it crashed. It was a three moves rep. Note, it repeated it when I wanted
to impute the notation once more at the beginning of the rep.
Exactly the same what I reported to the hotline when drawing the first
time against Fritz4. I was advised to upgrade from my 4 Mb...
But 16 should be enough, no? Good news to see that the "beast" had put
the draw score right in its base. So I'm suddenly climbing into higher
regions afgain. Now, nobody could stop me from a new GM norm....
Could it be that the Norton Utilities which "saves" certain sessional
temporary bases and also the rating.dat, produce the crash? Please try
it for a reproduction.
If you want, answer by email...
Bill Newton
In article <60ahqf$9te$2...@news00.btx.dtag.de>, Rolf Tueschen
<TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de> writes
>Bill, keep in mind, that you are strongly insulting me and most of all
>-- my understanding. :)
Rolf, the observation that you made re the 50 move rule 'was'
shallow. In fact it was the first one I myself eliminated prior to writing
to the group seeking expert opinion.
>Proves that you don't understand the "difficulty" of such an ending.
Perceptive Rolf. That's precisely why I asked the questions :))
>>Even so I think you'll find it's mate in seven.
>No, if you want/like it's both, depending of your counting mode. Key
>move and then ... or all in all. :)
After the final black move of 119. ... Kh4, the Fritz5 engine itself
declares it's mate in seven on my screen readout.
Your screen readout is?
>The point is that the move provokes the "click" on immediate draw
>*because* it's mate in...
Gosh Rolf! You mean that Lasker intentionally placed himself in a
position to be mated in seven, simply because he felt safe in the
knowledge that there were insufficient moves left to mate him?
Well I'm wide eyed with admiration and disbelief !
Oh, hang on a minute, I know where you've gone wrong. You've
fallen off your 'logical' roundabout!! Tell you why. Do you remember
speculating in an earlier post as to whether the fifty move rule was in
operation at the time this game was played?
Just in case you dont here's a copy of your quote:
>In reality it's a question for the pope of archeological chess Mr.
>Pope.What were the time schedules in those days and so on. Did
>they reallyhave the 50 moves rule?
Well 'now' your whole argument depends upon the fifty move rule
being in operation at the time. But you're not sure of that are you?
Because you pose the question yourself in your quote above!
So come on now Rolf.......own up......you're making things up to fit your
argument as you go along aren't you? It's so unlike you to drift away
from a logical approach. Listen: you know that calm, elegant, stylish,
polite, refined, but mainly logical disposition that you usually display
with so much aplomb?
Well where's it gone to? :))
But enough of this jocularity! If I'm to take you to task then I must
point out that IMO, whatever the circumstances, Lasker was too
'professional' to ever contemplate making such an undignified and
unprofessional move as was Kh4 in the position shown in the Fritz 5
database.
Such a mental aberration on Laskers part would have given Tarrasch
a clear moral victory in the eyes of the chess world, whilst any gain
to Lasker for such crass behaviour would have been as clear as the
dark side of the moon!
Meanwhile, until/unless more evidence appears I shall stand firm by
my opinion that the game score has become fudged with the passage
of time. A view that is surely far more credible than is your own
imaginative and sadly illogical conclusion.
>Bill, I hate it, but after being tortured for months with advices about
>short and on to the point reasoning, I'm proud to be able to present my
>spontaneous healing right now. Yes, I'm no longer willing to be defined
>as "insane". :)
Sorry Rolf, I dont understand this paragraph.
>You're really as innocent as a newborn child. All related on chess of
>course.
If you are suggesting that I'm a chess rabbit, I must agree :(
Because it's not in my nature to pretend to be what I'm not.!
>Note, _I_ dont talk about redundancy.
Lost me again here.
>Take a look into the ENCYCL. of ENDINGS, and you'll see that even the
>deepest analysis, uncriticised since decades, were turned upside down by
>the databases...
Hence me originally asking the following questions:
>>In other words can mate be 'forced' albeit it takes 'more' than 50
>>moves? If it can be forced, but only in 'more' than 50 moves, have
>>modern chess laws been ammended accordingly?
Is there a definitive answer to this question or is it simply a position
beyond analysis?
>>Meanwhile, my original question remains the same: 'If mate could
>>have been forced ( within 50 moves at that time) why did Tarrasch
>>not achieve it?
Is there a speculative response to this question?
>>If mate couldn't be forced, why did Tarrash continue to play on?
Is there a speculative response to this question?
Regards.
--
Bill Newton
Rolf Tueschen
Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>> I hide it here. Yesterday after my very first draw against the new Fritz
>> it crashed. It was a three moves rep. Note, it repeated it when I wanted
>> to impute the notation once more at the beginning of the rep.
>>
>If you experience a crash, it is extremely helpful for us to get the
>GPF-address and module name.
You know I know this. But this time it was a complete crash with no more
warm boot and no signals like the famous window with the modul
adresses...
What is it in this case, Fritz or system?
> If its a crash in the operating system, say
>GDI.EXE, Fritz usually is innocent. If its a crash in Fritz5.exe, the
>address allows us to scrutinize the function which caused trouble. I
>tried (in handicap mode)
What's that? I was in the serious formerly P mode.
BTW I detected that the notation was also not in the mybases file. But I
thought of another possibility: If I get my first half point after 12
losses could it be that a special music is blown :) or a street title is
given and that this feature caused it?
You must know about the details what's going on in that case. Rating.dat
which cant be deleted forever due to NORTON and so on...
Of my 16 Mb I had 4096 kb for the engine. Could this too be too few
space for the Fritz window? But I thought I could even take more because
the disk is still mute all the time...
Could it be that after the game a proces of NORTAN started in background
and that crashed the system? A thing that brought me to this
speculation. During my thought being on move I had still another proces
running and I looked by clicking on the task bar on the System Doctor.
Coming back to Fritz I had several squares of the Fritz5 default surface
in a deeper red. When moving a piece afterwards it came back to normal,
but other squares stayed in this new color. Is *this* known or typical
for multi-(how's called in WIN?)?
A final hint. I wrote it during your holidays yet. Please give a warning
sign for those who want to open "openings". I hope you know that then --
even if you had a good opening before -- Fritz will build a new one
without ever asking a word. Read also please my funny description of the
supposed CB politics. It's basically not at all funny. And I know you
also dont think so. Always if something "bad" could happen if the user
did this or that you should implement warning signs. Like HALT or STOP.
Dont translate it in english... It's worldwide known. :)
>to reproduce your problem but was unsuccesful.
Rolf Tueschen
Wuelle...@t-online.de (ChessBase GmbH) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>> If I get my first half point after 12
>losses could it be that a special music is blown :) or a street title is
>given and that this feature caused it?
>Thats right, that could be the reason. How is music working with your
>Fritz? Can you listen to the Bach background music?
I can, but have deactivated it. Note, in all the games before there were
several pieces of music for my honor as player and then earnest player.
Hehehehe. I take it with humour that you play a piece of music for a
real IGM when he becomes "player". LOL. But I surely know that this is
more for the beginners, no?
But now I'm back at 2080 and still with a rising tendency. As always.
Let me quickly add that mclane put here an interesting opinion about big
books. He wrote that the book mainly was a technical tool to help the
machine find perspective positions. Under the assumption that the engine
knows how to play them.
That seems the problem with the big book. I'm so deeply in certain
variations after hundreds of games with prior versions that I needed
these around 6 games with each color to find enough information to
strike back now. :) ------->............ G M S T A T U S
An add for the graphics. I had a CD audio in the background today. Then
the CD was finished. I clicked on task bar and so got the player display
in the forground. Then I wiped it out. Alas.
Exactly where this display was before I had again a mixture of darker
colors on white squares... Long story put short: I lost a little bit my
perception. I'm not a good blind player. I dont play blind. I'm a good
player, no? :)
So my question: I need as Czub put it several times, a 20 Elo points
bonus for my journey to GM status. Look it's my business, Matthias.
Rolf Tueschen
Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Pope Rolf, please enlighten me. What do *you* think about this
draw?
Well, Bill, let me answer this way. I have an annotation for this game.
And then, I add that I was formerly wrong in mentioning that Tarrasch
went wrong before.
No, the game after the 72. move is draw. Explanation: the King is not on
the border. So it's a draw. But you can try it for 50 moves if you can
win.
The dreaw was with the Kh4 in the end. So logically as I am I conclude
that this rule must have been existent. But I don't have other evidence
at the moment. Therefore i mentioned Mr. Pope for this question. :)
And then this:
The game was in a match. It's unbelievable that people should have
changed the score or notation in the end....
Considering your interesting psychological input for Lasker, I must
claim newbie status because I'm not a good enough expert on this.
If we follow Huebner lasker was not at all playing with a special or
superior psychology.
But privately I must say that this draw is not what you assumed because
of the Kh4 a morale victory for Tarrasch, but after the logic _I_
usually take in to consideration, it's a morale victory for Lasker.
because... Well, answer yourself. :)
This was all on topic "misc". And chess too. If you *really* want to
fight for the heavyweight championship of the popes, then of course I
must reply to your shaky arguments in your last post. But then too it
would be a big winner for my, the Lasker, side... A draw is sufficient
for the title holder, and that's me like Lasker in those days.
You *know* well that I'm d a n g e r o u s! Chris once found the
telling analogy of a real P.Ader. :)
Yours Pope in chess
ChessBase GmbH
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>> If I get my first half point after 12
losses could it be that a special music is blown :) or a street title is
given and that this feature caused it?
Thats right, that could be the reason. How is music working with your
Fritz? Can you listen to the Bach background music?
> >Matthias
ChessBase GmbH
Bill Newton wrote:
> I feel sure the game score in the Fritz 5 Database is incorrect.
That is certainly possible with an unannotated game. We'll have a look
in the good old paper-library.
--
ChessBase GmbH
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
> I hide it here. Yesterday after my very first draw against the new Fritz
> it crashed. It was a three moves rep. Note, it repeated it when I wanted
> to impute the notation once more at the beginning of the rep.
>
If you experience a crash, it is extremely helpful for us to get the
GPF-address and module name. If its a crash in the operating system, say
GDI.EXE, Fritz usually is innocent. If its a crash in Fritz5.exe, the
address allows us to scrutinize the function which caused trouble. I
tried (in handicap mode) to reproduce your problem but was unsuccesful.
Martin Borriss
In article <3428BA...@seanet.com>,
brucemo <bru...@seanet.com> writes:
>Bill Newton wrote:
>
>> More intriguing to me as a 'rabbit' is trying to discover whether
>> K+R+B can in fact 'force' a win over K+R. I ask because I understand
>> that modern chess laws have been amended after computer
>> technology recently identified that the 50 move rule is inappropriate
>> in certain scenarios. That makes me wonder whether K+R+B v K+R
>> qualifies as such a scenario.
>
>won cases that take more than 50 moves to convert.
>
>This *was* the scenerio that made some people rethink the 50-move rule.
>
>When it was discovered that some won positions were defined as draws
>due to the 50-move rule, FIDE ammended its rules in order to allow more
>moves in this ending, but the professional players were so upset about
>this that they put things back.
I understand that they (FIDE and players) realized that this would require
changing the 50 moves rule also for KRB vs KNN (win in over 200 moves) etc.
Martin
Robert Hyatt
Martin Borriss (bor...@inf.tu-dresden.de) wrote:
: In article <3428BA...@seanet.com>,
: Martin
Yes, although the change was later "unchanged" and the normal 50-move
rule re-established. Players weren't happy about having to play on in
endings that could take forever...
Bill Newton
I found the following comments dated 24 Sep 97 from Rolf T by
chance as I was browsing through 'Deja'
They never made it to me via RGCC direct, so please excuse the
belated response.
Subject: Re: Draw?
From: > TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de
(Rolf
>Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Dear Pope Rolf, please enlighten me. What do *you* think about
>this draw?
Rolf, I dont know where you acquired this comment from, but it's not
something 'I' ever said. Would you care to rectify your..........erm
misunderstanding....or have you entered the world of prevarication :)
...snip...
>And then this:
>The game was in a match. It's unbelievable that people should have
>changed the score or notation in the end....
Ah such refreshing naivety, fair brings a lump to my throat it does!
But surely you've read about the less than honest approach that a
certain Alexander Alekhine adopted when annotating his own games?
Yes, I'm afraid he was prone to manipulating a move or two :) Not
that I'm suggesting that was the case on this occasion, but if you can
manage a huge mental leap perhaps you can envisage a mistake
having been made with the game score sometime twixt then and
now.
BTW, did you read the posting from Ilias Kastanas earlier in this
thread stating that the correct game record is 118... Kh4 119. Kf5,
Rb3 1/2?
Do you dispute his comment?
>Considering your interesting psychological input for Lasker, I must
>claim newbie status because I'm not a good enough expert on this.
OK I'm prepared to accept that you're no expert.
>This was all on topic "misc". And chess too. If you *really* want to
>fight for the heavyweight championship of the popes,
No thanks Rolf, you can call your self what you will, though I just
can't resist pointing out that many readers of this group would
concur with me, that given the content of your recent postings,
perhaps 'Popeye' may be a more representative soubriquet :)
>then of course I must reply to your shaky arguments in your last
>post.
Yes, please do; answering the questions I pose would be a welcome,
if somewhat novel approach for you to undertake.
>You *know* well that I'm d a n g e r o u s!
Yep, as is a loose cannon.
>Chris once found the telling analogy of a real P.Ader. :)
Pardon??
Regards.