A study that almost wasn't
sd
Kc8 Bh5 Pa4c3f2h4/Ka3 Ba7 Pa5c5e4f3
White to Play and Win
Steven B. Dowd, Problem Forum 2009
I really have GM Benko to thank for this study, which he also re-
printed in his endgame column, probably to show how to properly
analyze. :) When I was overrelying on what the engines told me, he
made me carry on in some analysis - where the machine saw a draw,
there was none - although it was close.
What was really amazing was that most people would have claimed a co-
author's credit here for the work done, but Benko was insistent I keep
this for myself (this position is of course the final one of many that
were similar, as in most problems, and since the same sequence HAD
drawn in many other positions I played out, I "assumed" the machine
was correct here as well).
Benko got involved mainly because I simply sent him an email telling
him of my difficulties in getting this thing to work the way I wanted
- and even though he had published many of my endings before, I didn't
really expect an answer.
There is a lot more here than at first glance. There is of course a
try that fails for white, and a single move that should win, unless I
missed something. As anyone who has composed a study knows, you always
hope you haven't missed anything.......
I'll post my analysis for anyone interested later, but the main thing
this study always does is remind me not to overly trust computer
analysis - to look at every "plus whatever" or "minus whatever" with a
jaded eye until I am sure for myself that the computer's analysis is
correct.
Have fun playing with it, should you care to.
SBD
raylopez99
I don't believe it. Once again you name drop, like TK with UK chess
columnist Barden, and expect us to believe that Benko would give you
the time of day.
As to your analysis, a quick 30 second search on an old XP machine
yields the answer:
New game
2K5/b7/8/p1p4B/P3p2P/k1P2p2/5P2/8 w - - 0 1
Analysis by Fritz 9:
1. +- (5.41): 1.Kb7 Kxa4 2.Bxf3 Kb3 3.h5 exf3 4.h6 Kxc3 5.Kxa7 a4
6.h7 Kd2 7.h8Q Ke1 8.Qb2 a3 9.Qc2
2. +- (3.05): 1.c4 Kb4 2.Bxf3 exf3 3.h5 Kxc4 4.h6 Kb3 5.h7 c4 6.h8Q
Bxf2 7.Qe5 Bg1 8.Qb5+ Kc3
3. = (0.00): 1.Bxf3 c4 2.Bxe4 Bxf2 3.Kb7 Kxa4 4.Ka6 Be1 5.Bc2+ Ka3
6.Kb5 Kb2 7.Bd1 a4 8.Bxa4 Kxc3 9.h5 Bd2 10.h6 Bxh6
So much for your "brilliant composition". It gets cooked faster than
a fresh egg, in less than a minute.
RL
sd
Unfortunately Ray, 1. Kb7 only draws. That is the try. Look harder.
And you need to let Fritz analyze much longer than a minute. 1. Kb7
c4! and black draws by a hair, although it is more than ten moves
deep. Actually one thing Benko noted that was a weakness of the study
was that the try was more interesting than the actual continuation!
Also after 1. c4 Kb4 2. Bxf3, black has a better defense than exf3,
and this must be refuted in a unique way as well. He plays 2. ....
Kxc4!, and now I believe only 3. Be2+! wins.
You are welcome to find the issue of Chess Life with Benko's analysis,
I think it was the December 2009 issue. But I am sure you will instead
just spit back the quick evaluation of a machine.....
SBD
sd
(vi) 4...c4 5.Kxa7 c3 6.Bd1 and wins.
(i) Try 1.Kb7? c4! 2.Kxa7 Kxa4 3.Bxf3 exf3 4.h5 Kb3 5.h6 a4 6.h7 a3
7.h8Q a2! = , white is deprived of the corner to corner access to a1,
showing the wisdom of black’s c4! and must play 8. Qh1, but then 8. …
Kb2! draws. (but if too early: 7...Kb2? 8.Qb8+! wins, for example 8. …
Kc2 9. Kb6 a2 10. Qa8 Kb2 11. Kc5!; 8 ..Kxc3 9. Qd6 and the WK will
come help pick off the black pawns and mate black once the WQ settles
on the first rank)
(ii) 1...Kxa4? 2.Bxf3! (2.c4? Kb4!; now black’s king has access to a
dark square, eliminating any zwischenschach by the white bishop 3.Bxf3
a4! 4.Bxe4 a3 5.Bb1 Kxc4 6.h5 Kb3 7.h6 Kb2 8.h7 Kxb1 9.h8Q a2=)
2...exf3 (2...Kb3 3.h5 a4 4.Bd1+) 3.h5 wins
(iii) 2. Bg6?? e3! wins
(iv) 2...exf3 3.h5 Kxc4 4.h6 Kb3 5.h7 c4 6.h8Q Bxf2 7.Qf6! Kxa4 8.Qxf3
Bc5; white wins, database position, mate in 15 moves. The pawns are
easily picked off as the WK draws nearer to assist in the mate.
(v) 3. Bxe4? and black draws easily 3 … Kd4! or 3. … Bb6!
(vi) Only now can white approach and win the bishop; whereas pushing
the pawn is incorrect: 4.h5? c4!
sd
> a fresh egg, in less than a minute.
Fortunately, it takes more than a minute to cook it. Your analysis is
faulty. Try again.
SBD
None
>
> So much for your "brilliant composition". It gets cooked faster than
You are an insolent douche bag
raylopez99
> 1.c4! (i) 1...Kb3 (ii) 2.Bxf3! (iii) Kxc4 (iv) 3.Be2+!(v) Kd4 4.Kb7!
> (vi) 4...c4 5.Kxa7 c3 6.Bd1 and wins.
>
> (i) Try 1.Kb7? c4! 2.Kxa7 Kxa4 3.Bxf3 exf3 4.h5 Kb3 5.h6 a4 6.h7 a3
> 7.h8Q a2! = , white is deprived of the corner to corner access to a1,
> showing the wisdom of black’s c4! and must play 8. Qh1, but then 8. …
> Kb2! draws. (but if too early: 7...Kb2? 8.Qb8+! wins, for example 8. …
> Kc2 9. Kb6 a2 10. Qa8 Kb2 11. Kc5!; 8 ..Kxc3 9. Qd6 and the WK will
> come help pick off the black pawns and mate black once the WQ settles
> on the first rank)
I ran through this line and you are correct. The position is a bit
more complex than I imagined initially.
RL
None
> So much for your "brilliant composition". It gets cooked faster than
> a fresh egg, in less than a minute. >RL
>
> I ran through this line and you are correct. The position is a bit
> more complex than I imagined initially. > RL
Ray's imagination is like the type 4Fs as classified by Army
psychologists, religious zealots, and me. Denizens of the 4F phylum
would include high school career counselors, drones, fence posts, and
now Ray Lopest.
sd
So the fact that I said twice in the initial post not to trust
computer analysis superficially, but to closely evaluate every plus
and minus had no effect on you? You did the exact opposite - blew in
with a quick analysis that was incorrect (only verifying my statement
that the try was a good one), denigrated my conversation with Benko as
a fabrication, (which is easily documented in the Chess Life article),
and were a total jackass by saying:
So much for your "brilliant composition". It gets cooked faster than a
fresh egg, in less than a minute.
Which was incredibly foot in mouth for you, since you did the exact
opposite of what I said would get you in trouble, and all you can do
now is admit you were wrong? You have no capability for apologizing
for being such a stupid jerk? Do you think a well-known problem
magazine like Problem Forum, with Martin Minski, current FIDE judge
for studies, as editor, would accept something that cooks in 90
seconds with a third rate computer analysis? That you can outanalyze
me and Benko with 90 seconds given to your computer?
And then you wonder why no one comments on your stupid "master-level"
game?
SBD
Mark Houlsby
> On Jul 10, 6:10 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 3:30 am, sd <sdowd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 1.c4! (i) 1...Kb3 (ii) 2.Bxf3! (iii) Kxc4 (iv) 3.Be2+!(v) Kd4 4.Kb7!
> > > (vi) 4...c4 5.Kxa7 c3 6.Bd1 and wins.
>
> > > (i) Try 1.Kb7? c4! 2.Kxa7 Kxa4 3.Bxf3 exf3 4.h5 Kb3 5.h6 a4 6.h7 a3
> > > 7.h8Q a2! = , white is deprived of the corner to corner access to a1,
> > > showing the wisdom of black’s c4! and must play 8. Qh1, but then 8. …
> > > Kb2! draws. (but if too early: 7...Kb2? 8.Qb8+! wins, for example 8. …
> > > Kc2 9. Kb6 a2 10. Qa8 Kb2 11. Kc5!; 8 ..Kxc3 9. Qd6 and the WK will
> > > come help pick off the black pawns and mate black once the WQ settles
> > > on the first rank)
>
> > I ran through this line and you are correct. The position is a bit
> > more complex than I imagined initially.
>
> > RL
>
> So the fact that I said twice in the initial post not to trust
> computer analysis superficially, but to closely evaluate every plus
> and minus had no effect on you?
Correct. Nothing exerts any effect on him. He's a troll. PDFTT.
> You did the exact opposite - blew in
> with a quick analysis that was incorrect (only verifying my statement
> that the try was a good one), denigrated my conversation with Benko as
> a fabrication, (which is easily documented in the Chess Life article),
The CL article documents that the conversation was a fabrication?
Careful, he'll troll you about this. PDFTT.
> and were a total jackass by saying:
>
> So much for your "brilliant composition". It gets cooked faster than a
> fresh egg, in less than a minute.
>
> Which was incredibly foot in mouth for you, since you did the exact
> opposite of what I said would get you in trouble, and all you can do
> now is admit you were wrong?
Correct, He'll adopt whatever position and resort to whatever tactics
he deems necessary to continue to troll, for as long as people feed
him.
PDFTT.
> You have no capability for apologizing
> for being such a stupid jerk?
Correct, He'll adopt whatever position and resort to whatever tactics
he deems necessary to continue to troll, for as long as people feed
him.
PDFTT.
> Do you think a well-known problem
> magazine like Problem Forum, with Martin Minski, current FIDE judge
> for studies, as editor, would accept something that cooks in 90
> seconds with a third rate computer analysis? That you can outanalyze
> me and Benko with 90 seconds given to your computer?
>
Correct, He'll adopt whatever position and resort to whatever tactics
he deems necessary to continue to troll, for as long as people feed
him.
PDFTT.
> And then you wonder why no one comments on your stupid "master-level"
> game?
>
Correct, He'll adopt whatever position and resort to whatever tactics
he deems necessary to continue to troll, for as long as people feed
him.
PDFTT.
> SBD
MH
raylopez99
> On Jul 10, 6:10 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I ran through this line and you are correct. The position is a bit
> > more complex than I imagined initially.
>
> > RL
>
> So the fact that I said twice in the initial post not to trust
> computer analysis superficially, but to closely evaluate every plus
> and minus had no effect on you? You did the exact opposite - blew in
> with a quick analysis that was incorrect (only verifying my statement
> that the try was a good one), denigrated my conversation with Benko as
> a fabrication, (which is easily documented in the Chess Life article),
> and were a total jackass by saying:
>
> So much for your "brilliant composition". It gets cooked faster than a
> fresh egg, in less than a minute.
>
> Which was incredibly foot in mouth for you, since you did the exact
> opposite of what I said would get you in trouble, and all you can do
> now is admit you were wrong? You have no capability for apologizing
> for being such a stupid jerk?
Wait please. I apologize. I had no idea you were a serious
problemist. I enjoy problems, though usually I get confused with the
requirement that there be a quiet move in the beginning (no check or
capture). I even bought a book, hardback, that classifies various
problems. I forget the terminology, but it was quite complex.
"Indian" something comes to mind.
> Do you think a well-known problem
> magazine like Problem Forum, with Martin Minski, current FIDE judge
> for studies, as editor, would accept something that cooks in 90
> seconds with a third rate computer analysis? That you can outanalyze
> me and Benko with 90 seconds given to your computer?
I'll look into Problem forum--maybe I'll even subscribe. Let's leave
Pal Benko out of this--I never said anything about him not analyzing.
>
> And then you wonder why no one comments on your stupid "master-level"
> game?
>
OK, will you please comment on my master level game then? Here is the
link: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_thread/thread/077fb4ed74f3767c?hl=en
I reiterate the terms: all you have to find is one mistake by either
player--even a move that wins quicker than the moves made, with the
exception of move 25, though a quick 5 second analysis on Fritz shows
the move I made not that bad--within if memory serves 1 or 2 pawns, so
even for move 25 I'll take it there was a mistake if the evaluation
changes more than 2 pawns --and I will stop any name calling in my
posts, and forevermore be polite, at least as polite as this thread,
if not more polite. That's how confident I am this is a master level
game.
I look forward to any comments you may have Mr. SBD, and I
congratulate you for being a friend of Pal Benko, an original famous
20th century problemist, not to mention one of the founders of a chess
opening.
RL
raylopez99
> Correct, He'll adopt whatever position and resort to whatever tactics
> he deems necessary to continue to troll, for as long as people feed
> him.
>
> PDFTT.
>
> > SBD
>
> MH
What does PDFTT mean, fuckwit?
And you're claiming you're NOT a troll?
I am a provocative poster--big difference from a troll, troll.
RL
sd
It's nice to see the apology Ray, but I am afraid your history
precludes me from having a serious look at your game. Boy who cried
wolf and so on. Too many accusations of stupidity and such on each end
for there ever to be a cordial relationship. If you are serious, then
too bad, but I suspect MH is closer to the truth when he presents you
as a troll.
I've presented myself as a problemist (Babson thread, etc) several
times before this, so your "not knowing" seems not so credible.
BTW, I would never claim to be a friend of Pal Benko, though I would
dearly love to do so. I've just been lucky enough to have endgames
published by him and he has written me with comments, analysis, and so
on. Just to have exchanged emails with him, on a professional level,
was a thrill for me since I grew up in the salad days of the Benko
gambit. Most of the really good ones will write you back, if you post
serious queries to them.
SBD
raylopez99
> On Jul 10, 10:14 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's nice to see the apology Ray, but I am afraid your history
> precludes me from having a serious look at your game. Boy who cried
> wolf and so on. Too many accusations of stupidity and such on each end
> for there ever to be a cordial relationship. If you are serious, then
> too bad, but I suspect MH is closer to the truth when he presents you
> as a troll.
I acknowledge your admission of weakness. I thank you for your time.
Goodbye.
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 10, 5:41 pm, sd <sdowd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And then you wonder why no one comments on your stupid "master-level"
> > game?
>
> OK, will you please comment on my master level game then? Here is the
>
> I reiterate the terms: all you have to find is one mistake by either
> player--even a move that wins quicker than the moves made, with the
> exception of move 25, though a quick 5 second analysis on Fritz shows
> the move I made not that bad--within if memory serves 1 or 2 pawns, so
> even for move 25 I'll take it there was a mistake if the evaluation
> changes more than 2 pawns --and I will stop any name calling in my
> posts, and forevermore be polite, at least as polite as this thread,
> if not more polite.
Those are not the terms you originally announced, Ray. Here is what
you posted on July 3rd, as can be seen in the link you yourself
provided:
"Same proposition I just made to Greg holds for you, and for anybody
else reading this thread: analyze the game I posted here, and if you
find one mistake by me or my opponent that shows this is not a master
level game, I'LL QUIT POSTING HERE FOREVER." (emphasis added)
> even for move 25 I'll take it there was a mistake if the evaluation
> changes more than 2 pawns
What exactly are you saying here, Ray? What do you mean by "if the
evaluation changes more than 2 pawns"? Do you mean if a good
analytical engine concludes there is more than a +2.00 difference
between your 25.Qxc5 and the actual best move, you will quit posting
here forever? If not, please clarify.
Mark Houlsby
> On Jul 10, 11:15 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am a provocative poster--big difference from a troll, troll.
>
> both
> disdain and pity. But there is no dividing line between trolling
> and
> being provocative. They overlap. So there is no need for 'Ray' to
> sacrifice his chosen profession in order to consider himself to be a
> provocative poster. He can simply continue to both troll and provoke,
> and at the very same time! This ability to accomplish multiple
> things
> at the same time is just one of the many benefits of being a troll.
> Another would be that people come to appreciate you not for who you
> are, but for what you do -- for the value of your actual contributions
> to
> the newsgroup. In that respect 'Ray' is practically in a class all
> by
> himself (not counting Phil Innes).
So you approve of trolling then, Greg?
The Master
wrote:
> What exactly are you saying here, Ray? What do you mean by "if the
> evaluation changes more than 2 pawns"? Do you mean if a good
> analytical engine concludes there is more than a +2.00 difference
> between your 25.Qxc5 and the actual best move, you will quit posting
> here forever? If not, please clarify.
Asking Ray to 'clarify' something is like asking a rhinocerous to
tap dance
while leaving no mark on the rice paper lining the dance floor. It is
like asking
a scorpion to refrain from stinging the frog on whose back he rides to
cross a
river. Or requesting that the Big Bad Wolf kindly refrain from
satisfying his
hunger by devouring Little Red Riding Hood, and just try fasting
instead.
Put simply, Ray is no clarifier. His longstanding habit is one of
obfuscation
-- and of changing the subject. His mental bulb gives off much heat
but
precious little in the way of visible light. And his promises? Only
time will
tell but if I were a betting man, I'd bet they are as worthless as are
his nearly
innumerable jibberings regarding the game of chess.
You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. Nor can you extract
clarity of
thought from someone whose mind is in a vegetative state -- someone
like
'Ray.'
raylopez99
wrote:
TK, you make good points, and I apologize for not being more clear.
Let me be more clear, and this post should supercede my previous
posts.
I am saying that the game found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/browse_thread/thread/077fb4ed74f3767c?hl=en
should anybody analyse it, and find it is not a master quality game,
and find any mistakes by any players (white or black) that shows this
is not a master quality game, with the exception that 25. Qxc5 is not
the best move (i.e., there's a quicker win) I will henceforth do, at
the bequest of the person who analyzed the game, any of the following
(their call): 1) cease posting here forever, 2) never troll or post
provocatively (i.e., with insults), or, 3) never post any more of my
blitz games. Their call. But first, somebody has to analyze the
game. Further, for move 25, if anybody finds this move is not of
master quality, I will also abide by the above. Like I say, move 25
for the winning side is not the best move, but it's a move of master
quality. But regardless, the game, aside from the white being able to
win even quicker at move 25, is flawlessly played and of master
quality throughout--by black or white.
Who wants to take up the challenge? This is your chance to 'get rid
of me' or make me play by your rules.
A golden opportunity--I'm surprised nobody has taken the challenge.
RL
raylopez99
> the newsgroup. In that respect 'Ray' is practically in a class all
> by
> himself (not counting Phil Innes).
Thanks The Master. But I dispute your claim "not counting"--are you
conceding that I'm not Phil Innes? If so, I'm disappointed.
RL
raylopez99
> You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. Nor can you extract
> clarity of
> thought from someone whose mind is in a vegetative state -- someone
> like
> 'Ray.'
Wrong. See my reply to TK. I have clarified. And I await anybody's
analysis of my master game....find me ONE mistake, by either side,
showing it's not a master game. I defy you to do so.
RL
Taylor Kingston
>
> should anybody analyse it, and find it is not a master quality game,
> and find any mistakes by any players (white or black) that shows this
> is not a master quality game, with the exception that 25. Qxc5 is not
> the best move (i.e., there's a quicker win) I will henceforth do, at
> the bequest of the person who analyzed the game, any of the following
> (their call): 1) cease posting here forever, 2) never troll or post
> provocatively (i.e., with insults), or, 3) never post any more of my
> blitz games. Their call. But first, somebody has to analyze the
> game. Further, for move 25, if anybody finds this move is not of
> master quality, I will also abide by the above. Like I say, move 25
> for the winning side is not the best move, but it's a move of master
> quality. But regardless, the game, aside from the white being able to
> win even quicker at move 25, is flawlessly played and of master
> quality throughout--by black or white.
Ray, you're still being quite vague. You will have to define "master
quality" specifically. In the past your "flawless" games have been
shown to be full of flaws (this one is no exception), yet you make
lame excuses or airily dismiss them with semantic nonsense. So for a
start, you must define what you mean by "flawless" and "master
quality." And no bullcrap definitions like your usual "flawless means
perfect except for all the mistakes I make because it's blitz."
> Who wants to take up the challenge? This is your chance to 'get rid
> of me' or make me play by your rules.
>
> A golden opportunity--I'm surprised nobody has taken the challenge.
I'm sure many of us here would like to see you keep a promise never
to post here again, but we do not trust you to keep it.
raylopez99
wrote:
>
> Ray, you're still being quite vague. You will have to define "master
> quality" specifically. In the past your "flawless" games have been
> shown to be full of flaws (this one is no exception), yet you make
> lame excuses or airily dismiss them with semantic nonsense. So for a
> start, you must define what you mean by "flawless" and "master
> quality." And no bullcrap definitions like your usual "flawless means
> perfect except for all the mistakes I make because it's blitz."
TK, you would make a fine lawyer. But I'm not a lawyer. Why don't
you come up with a definition? Whatever I say you'll dispute. As you
know, no chess game is lost without at least one mistake.
But let me try and come up with something. I define "flawless" and
"master quality" as a move that--with the exception of move 25, which
we all agree could have been better--Rybka would have made within the
top three moves--a move a grandmaster would make (since Rybka
essentially is a grandmaster, on any decent hardware). Fair enough?
No vagueness whatsoever.
Now I have not gone through this game with Rybka (I don't even own
Rybka--I use Fritz 9 or 5.3x, sometimes Crafty) so I don't know what
Rybka would say--but I'm so confident that it's a master level game
that my bet--the three things I would do as I said earlier--holds if
you or anybody else find any moves made not within Rybka's top three
moves--that is, the kind of move a grandmaster would make.
Fair enough? Tell you what--make that the top TWO Rybka moves.
That's how confident I am. But please, like I said, move 25 is an
exception--I realize White could have won quicker if I had made a
better move.
Deal?
And yes, I will keep my word. No games there. Promise.
With warm regards,
Ray
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 11, 3:44 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Ray, you're still being quite vague. You will have to define "master
> > quality" specifically. In the past your "flawless" games have been
> > shown to be full of flaws (this one is no exception), yet you make
> > lame excuses or airily dismiss them with semantic nonsense. So for a
> > start, you must define what you mean by "flawless" and "master
> > quality." And no bullcrap definitions like your usual "flawless means
> > perfect except for all the mistakes I make because it's blitz."
>
> TK, you would make a fine lawyer. But I'm not a lawyer. Why don't
> you come up with a definition? Whatever I say you'll dispute. As you
> know, no chess game is lost without at least one mistake.
>
> But let me try and come up with something. I define "flawless" and
> "master quality" as a move that--with the exception of move 25, which
> we all agree could have been better--Rybka would have made within the
> top three moves--a move a grandmaster would make (since Rybka
> essentially is a grandmaster, on any decent hardware). Fair enough?
> No vagueness whatsoever.
In many positions that's a good, verifiable, objective standard, but
something more should be included. There are aspects of chess that
neither Rybka nor any other engine is competent to judge: positional
factors. To give an exaggerated case for the sake of clarity: after
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3, neither Fritz8 nor Rybka see anything wrong
with 3...e5; in fact it's one of their top choices. But any human
master can tell you that the move is bad positionally.
Another example would be your game where the correct positional
approach was a queenside minority attack supported by the fianchettoed
KB, and yet the engines liked a line in which the B's diagonal was
immediately closed off. This greatly decreased your advantage, but the
engines didn't see it. Therefore positional judgement should be
included.
Also, being in Rybka's top three moves is no guarantee of masterly
flawlessness. The #1 and 2 choices might be the only good moves, and
#3 dreadful.
> Fair enough? Tell you what--make that the top TWO Rybka moves.
> That's how confident I am.
In some cases #1 might be the only playable move, with everything
else losing. So "Rybka's top two" is not a proper definition. A better
criterion would be that a flawed move significantly changes the
evaluation, e.g. from won to lost or drawn, from drawn to lost, from
+/- (White stands much better) to -/+ (Black stands much better), etc.
Roughly speaking, anything with a difference of about 200 centipawns
or more, but not including things like a change from +14.00 to +12.00,
where the 200 centipawn difference is immaterial.
> But please, like I said, move 25 is an
> exception--I realize White could have won quicker if I had made a
> better move.
Why are you backing off from your previous stand? Yesterday you were
sure that the difference between the #1 and #2 25th moves was only
100-200 centipawns, and were willing to include it on that basis.
However, that is not a point I'll insist on. Reply to my provisos
above, and we'll see if we can proceed.
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 11, 3:44 pm, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Ray, you're still being quite vague. You will have to define "master
>> quality" specifically. In the past your "flawless" games have been
>> shown to be full of flaws (this one is no exception), yet you make
>> lame excuses or airily dismiss them with semantic nonsense. So for a
>> start, you must define what you mean by "flawless" and "master
>> quality." And no bullcrap definitions like your usual "flawless means
>> perfect except for all the mistakes I make because it's blitz."
>
>TK, you would make a fine lawyer. But I'm not a lawyer. Why don't
>you come up with a definition? Whatever I say you'll dispute. As you
>know, no chess game is lost without at least one mistake.
>
>But let me try and come up with something. I define "flawless" and
>"master quality" as a move that--with the exception of move 25, which
>we all agree could have been better--Rybka would have made within the
>top three moves--a move a grandmaster would make (since Rybka
>essentially is a grandmaster, on any decent hardware). Fair enough?
>No vagueness whatsoever.
This seems gimmicky.
Say, for example, Rybka's best move gets you +3, the next best move is
-4, everything else is -12 or worse. In other words, anything but the
winning move is a blunder. You could blunder and still be within the
top three alternatives.
>Now I have not gone through this game with Rybka (I don't even own
>Rybka--I use Fritz 9 or 5.3x, sometimes Crafty) so I don't know what
>Rybka would say--but I'm so confident that it's a master level game
>that my bet--the three things I would do as I said earlier--holds if
>you or anybody else find any moves made not within Rybka's top three
>moves--that is, the kind of move a grandmaster would make.
>
>Fair enough? Tell you what--make that the top TWO Rybka moves.
>That's how confident I am. But please, like I said, move 25 is an
>exception--I realize White could have won quicker if I had made a
>better move.
>
>Deal?
>
>And yes, I will keep my word. No games there. Promise.
With that in mind, your 22nd move is a major error. 22 Qc6ch Kf8 23
Rb7 is crushing after Qxc3, 24 Rxe7! Kg8, 26 Rg1! (preventing the Rook
sac at h3).
There are some other points where your moves were less than optimal,
but, as mentioned above, to me, there is slight practical difference
between a move that gets you +5 and one that gets you +7. It's not
like the difference between +1 and -1.
>With warm regards,
>
>Ray
raylopez99
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:28:51 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99
> >But let me try and come up with something. I define "flawless" and
> >"master quality" as a move that--with the exception of move 25, which
> >we all agree could have been better--Rybka would have made within the
> >top three moves--a move a grandmaster would make (since Rybka
> >essentially is a grandmaster, on any decent hardware). Fair enough?
> >No vagueness whatsoever.
>
> This seems gimmicky.
>
> Say, for example, Rybka's best move gets you +3, the next best move is
> -4, everything else is -12 or worse. In other words, anything but the
> winning move is a blunder. You could blunder and still be within the
> top three alternatives.
Yes, that's TK's point as well. You're right. See my reply to TK on
this.
>
> >Now I have not gone through this game with Rybka (I don't even own
> >Rybka--I use Fritz 9 or 5.3x, sometimes Crafty) so I don't know what
> >Rybka would say--but I'm so confident that it's a master level game
> >that my bet--the three things I would do as I said earlier--holds if
> >you or anybody else find any moves made not within Rybka's top three
> >moves--that is, the kind of move a grandmaster would make.
>
> >Fair enough? Tell you what--make that the top TWO Rybka moves.
> >That's how confident I am. But please, like I said, move 25 is an
> >exception--I realize White could have won quicker if I had made a
> >better move.
>
> >Deal?
>
> >And yes, I will keep my word. No games there. Promise.
>
> With that in mind, your 22nd move is a major error. 22 Qc6ch Kf8 23
> Rb7 is crushing after Qxc3, 24 Rxe7! Kg8, 26 Rg1! (preventing the Rook
> sac at h3).
Wait a minute. Are you accepting the challenge? Apparently you are.
Then that's your critique of my game? OK then. I actually overlooked
the 22nd move, and in Fritz 9 it did not come up as a big change,
until you pointed it out to me. The reason why: the evaluation
changes from +3.22 to +2.22, so I did not see any big change since the
last two digits did not change much. But now that you mention it, it
is a 1 pawn change in value. I'm not clear whether you are saying
this is the only move that's a mistake. If so, I am prepared to
defend my position, and I'm not taking my challenge off the table.
I'll let you decide whether my defense is sound, but first, I want to
hear back from TK, so see my latest reply to him, to see if he'll
analyse the game.
>
> There are some other points where your moves were less than optimal,
> but, as mentioned above, to me, there is slight practical difference
> between a move that gets you +5 and one that gets you +7. It's not
> like the difference between +1 and -1.
>
Well, good point. If you are saying the only mistake made by either
White or Black is move 22nd, I am prepared to defend that
decision. You're saying Black nor White made any other mistakes?
RL
raylopez99
wrote:
> On Jul 11, 10:28 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > TK, you would make a fine lawyer. But I'm not a lawyer. Why don't
> > you come up with a definition? Whatever I say you'll dispute. As you
> > know, no chess game is lost without at least one mistake.
>
> > But let me try and come up with something. I define "flawless" and
> > "master quality" as a move that--with the exception of move 25, which
> > we all agree could have been better--Rybka would have made within the
> > top three moves--a move a grandmaster would make (since Rybka
> > essentially is a grandmaster, on any decent hardware). Fair enough?
> > No vagueness whatsoever.
>
> In many positions that's a good, verifiable, objective standard, but
> something more should be included. There are aspects of chess that
> neither Rybka nor any other engine is competent to judge: positional
> factors. To give an exaggerated case for the sake of clarity: after
> 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3, neither Fritz8 nor Rybka see anything wrong
> with 3...e5; in fact it's one of their top choices. But any human
> master can tell you that the move is bad positionally.
Excellent example. I see your point.
> Another example would be your game where the correct positional
> approach was a queenside minority attack supported by the fianchettoed
> KB, and yet the engines liked a line in which the B's diagonal was
> immediately closed off. This greatly decreased your advantage, but the
> engines didn't see it. Therefore positional judgement should be
> included.
OK then. Include positional factors. You be the judge of that. I
trust you will be fair. Apparently (see my reply just now to
MikeMurray), Mike has already critiqued this game, and said the only
move he sees at fault (besides move 24) is move 22--for either side.
If true, I am prepared to defend that decision once I hear back from
Mike (don't want to put words in his mouth, so I'll await any feedback
from him).
> Also, being in Rybka's top three moves is no guarantee of masterly
> flawlessness. The #1 and 2 choices might be the only good moves, and
> #3 dreadful.
OK, let's make it YOUR call, YOU be the judge of which of Rybka's top
moves to choose. Let's say my move, not in Rybka's top XYZ is bad--if
you can tell me, using your judgement, why it's bad, I'll take your
word for it. But I'm trying to make it so that the evaluation is
objective. So, if you can tell me why (using Rybka or otherwise) my
move is bad, with the exception of move 24 (but not move 22--like I
say Mike says this is a mistake, and, if so--I still have yet to
analyze it--I'll live by that and if it's a mistake, and you agree, I
will have to stop posting here or otherwise, as MikeMurray sees fit.
But before I do that, I want to hear back from MM on move 22).
>
> > Fair enough? Tell you what--make that the top TWO Rybka moves.
> > That's how confident I am.
>
> In some cases #1 might be the only playable move, with everything
> else losing. So "Rybka's top two" is not a proper definition. A better
> criterion would be that a flawed move significantly changes the
> evaluation, e.g. from won to lost or drawn, from drawn to lost, from
> +/- (White stands much better) to -/+ (Black stands much better), etc.
Excellent point. I did not think of this, but you're right.
Essentially a change in state as they say in engineering, from good to
bad, bad to good, neutral to good/bad, etc. Agreed.
> Roughly speaking, anything with a difference of about 200 centipawns
> or more, but not including things like a change from +14.00 to +12.00,
> where the 200 centipawn difference is immaterial.
>
Yes. That's fine. Let's do that then. Agreed? Please analyse my
game. I'm very confident it's correct (and I'll study Mike's critique
of move 22 as soon as I have some time...doing a programming project
now but will have some downtime later tonight, maybe during breaks in
the World Cup match I'll watch).
> > But please, like I said, move 25 is an
> > exception--I realize White could have won quicker if I had made a
> > better move.
>
> Why are you backing off from your previous stand? Yesterday you were
> sure that the difference between the #1 and #2 25th moves was only
> 100-200 centipawns, and were willing to include it on that basis.
Because I took a quick look and it seemed to grow more than 200
centipawns. But, I'll take my medicine. If you say that move 25 is
the only mistake I made--say so--and if it's a huge mistake not of
master quality, and Mike Murray agrees (I need a third party to
verify), I'll not post here again. Go ahead and say that move 24 is
the only mistake you find and let's proceed from there.
> However, that is not a point I'll insist on. Reply to my provisos
> above, and we'll see if we can proceed.
I agree to your provisos. You analyze my game, show me ONE mistake--
even move 24, or move 22 that MM just found--and tell me that/those is/
are the only mistake(s), then let's proceed to the endgame. I'll take
my punishment if Rybka or MM or you can show me a change in state,
like you say (quick heads-up: my engine does not show a change in
state for move 24--I'm still winning by quite a large margin last I
checked, so that's why move 24 does not bother me. I have not yet
checked move 22, but it's probably the same--a 1 or 2 pawn change but
still winning). BTW, don't forget Black--I'm also saying Black did
not make any big mistakes--he played flawlessly. Don't just look at
white, consider black as well.
Going for a jog now, I'll check this thread again in 1.5 hours. My
blind date cancelled--just as well I heard she was too young.
RL
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> With that in mind, your 22nd move is a major error. 22 Qc6ch Kf8 23
>> Rb7 is crushing after Qxc3, 24 Rxe7! Kg8, 26 Rg1! (preventing the Rook
>> sac at h3).
>Wait a minute. Are you accepting the challenge? Apparently you are.
>Then that's your critique of my game? OK then. I actually overlooked
>the 22nd move, and in Fritz 9 it did not come up as a big change,
>until you pointed it out to me. The reason why: the evaluation
>changes from +3.22 to +2.22, so I did not see any big change since the
>last two digits did not change much. But now that you mention it, it
>is a 1 pawn change in value.
It's far from a 1 pawn change in value. My instance of Rybka gives
the correct 22 Qc6ch a +5.5 It gives your move a +2.45. (Obviously,
it will twiddle these numbers the longer it runs). You could argue
that it didn't change the overall situation.
> I'm not clear whether you are saying
>this is the only move that's a mistake.
I wasn't saying it was the only mistake.
13 Qd4! was better than your automatic pawn recapture.
I was giving you a pass on your move 27, since you'd already
acknowledged it as less than optimal, and your move still retained a
huge advantage.
28 Qc2 was considerably stronger than your move, but your position was
overwhelming in either case.
>You're saying Black nor White made any other mistakes?
Black made a number of serious errors, notably move 22, which turned
an inferior game into a dead loss, and on 26, where he missed a chance
to get back into the game, and on his moves 27 and 28, where he could
have put up stiffer resistance in a lost cause.
Basically, we've been examining tactical stuff, where the engines
shine in post-game analysis. Stronger players may have more subtle
critiques based on positional factors.
Taylor Kingston
OK, Ray, we seem to be in agreement. Just remember these terms, and
do not try to back out of them later. They have been posted here for
all to see.
I will post analysis soon, perhaps as early as tonight, no later
than a few days days from now. I will make it a separate thread, for
clarity. Also there may be as many as three separate analyses. One
will be strictly Rybka evaluations, to see if the moves are among
Rybka's top two choices, as you claim they will be. This will take
some time, to avoid too-hasty, superficial judgements.
Another will be Rybka-assisted but will include my own comments on
positional matters and other principles not understood by engines.
A third may be provided by a friend of mine, an experienced USCF
master, to see if he considers it "master level." I have given him the
moves only — no other information — so as not to prejudice his
evaluation.
I will not start analyzing until about move 10 or so; it seems to be
book up to that point, and engines can come up with some weird opening
verdicts that are not really relevant.
raylopez99
TK--I really appreciate it. I intend to stick to my word. I thank
you for your time. If I could send you money I would. This is going
to be good!
I'm watching the World Cup football (I mean soccer) match now...go
Spain! 0-0 tie and going into overtime now. Almost as exciting as
the Topo-Anand match.
RL
raylopez99
> On Jul 11, 5:22 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wrong. See my reply to TK. I have clarified. And I await anybody's
> > analysis of my master game....find me ONE mistake, by either side,
> > showing it's not a master game. I defy you to do so.
>
> Many master level games contain elementary blunders, and even
> the games of strong grandmasters can sometimes seem to be the
> work of one -- if not two -- relative patzers!
>
> Anyway, your blitz games -- if they really are *your* blitz games,
> Phil -- do not merit close study since you yourself only allocated
> a paltry few minutes apiece to their creation. Be that as it may...
> I have already identified one serious error: that of you expecting
> anyone to care whether or not an alleged blitz game, purportedly
> played by you, has or has not any elementary blunders so obvious
> that even Taylor Kingston or I could spot them, sans Fritz. That
> was just plain dumb. In my case because I know not the opening
> theory and in Kingston's case, because he could never restrain
> himself from consulting the computer (which can slice and dice,
> has easy cleanup, and if you call right now, only costs $29.95!).
Believe it or not, there are kernels of wisdom in this reply, which
you will find out if you continue reading this thread. Stay tuned.
Blind. Squirrel. Nut.
RL