Help with Komodo 1.0 personalities.

[BrendanJNorman]

I don't think Aronian would consider ...Re5 'blundering a piece' as anything akin to 'style'.

It's...lets just say 'lazy thinking' to think of Re5 as being a product of style....and I all too often see people point to such moves and shout "style!".....but a bad move is just a bad move.

When Tal played 21...Nf4 in the following game, it led GM Bryan Smith (ironic name, right?) to say:

21... Nf4! Much has been written about this sacrifice, and there has been a lot of analysis by various commentators, either refuting it or vindicating it. I don't intend to do any of that, but rather just to present the game. In any case, this sacrifice is the only continuation to Black's play . Otherwise, in view of the threat of 22.g4, Black would have to begin a general retreat, and allow White to gain a clear advantage by occupying e4. So if the sacrifice is unsound, it is Black's previous play, not the move itself, whicih should be questioned.

(Source: https://www.chess.com/article/view/clas ... -botvinnik )

Huh? A GM said that an unsound sacrifice is the "only way to continue"?

I thought as "bad move is just a bad move"?

[pgn][Event "Tal - Botvinnik World Championship Match"]
[Site "Moscow URS"]
[Date "1960.03.26"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Mikhail Botvinnik"]
[Black "Mikhail Tal"]
[ECO "E69"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "93"]

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.d4 d6 6.Nc3 Nbd7 7.O-O
e5 8.e4 c6 9.h3 Qb6 10.d5 cxd5 11.cxd5 Nc5 12.Ne1 Bd7 13.Nd3
Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Rfc8 15.Rb1 Nh5 16.Be3 Qb4 17.Qe2 Rc4 18.Rfc1
Rac8 19.Kh2 f5 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Ra1 Nf4 22.gxf4 exf4 23.Bd2
Qxb2 24.Rab1 f3 25.Rxb2 fxe2 26.Rb3 Rd4 27.Be1 Be5+ 28.Kg1 Bf4
29.Nxe2 Rxc1 30.Nxd4 Rxe1+ 31.Bf1 Be4 32.Ne2 Be5 33.f4 Bf6
34.Rxb7 Bxd5 35.Rc7 Bxa2 36.Rxa7 Bc4 37.Ra8+ Kf7 38.Ra7+ Ke6
39.Ra3 d5 40.Kf2 Bh4+ 41.Kg2 Kd6 42.Ng3 Bxg3 43.Bxc4 dxc4
44.Kxg3 Kd5 45.Ra7 c3 46.Rc7 Kd4 47.Rd7+ 0-1[/pgn]

It seems that for real chessplayers outside the gaze of a perfect chess entity, there is more than just black and white.

And that's why we find engines that play like this interesting.

[leavenfish]

Look I don't come here to get into 'pissing matches' with people. When people ask a serious of questions...that is all too often what they are gearing up for...I should never have assumed otherwise in responding. My mistake.

You simply gave: Re5!! ....with no comment, expect for the !! of course.

I don't know who you are...but I tried to look you up on the USCF site and do not see you. But it does not matter - you are completely missing my point when I say that if someone thinks Re5 gets a !! (generally understood to be a really good move), then perhaps they need to spend more time understanding what is an objectively good move is...ie, perfect their chess understanding a bit more.

I also said that ...if you are one to throw a bucket of paint on a canvas (actually THROW it) and call it art...well, we are arguing on totally different planes and must leave it at that.

So, I've addressed both. That's it. I've no interest in arguing for arguments sake.


Boban Stanojevic is about the only one making any good point here in my opinion...and I'll leave it at that.

[BrendanJNorman]

Look I don't come here to get into 'pissing matches' with people.

Well, perhaps don't tell us to "man up" (and agree with you) when we're in good spirits, enjoying some chess games.

That's a real buzz killer.

You simply gave: Re5!! ....with no comment, expect (sic) for the !! of course.

Guilty as charged.

And the person I was sharing the game with (Uly) fully agreed with my assessment.

I don't know who you are...but I tried to look you up on the USCF site and do not see you.

As weird as it sounds, outside of America people like chess too.

But it does not matter - you are completely missing my point when I say that if someone thinks Re5 gets a !! (generally understood to be a really good move), then perhaps they need to spend more time understanding what is an objectively good move is...ie, perfect their chess understanding a bit more.

Fine. If it is so important to you, I'll retract my "Re5!!" and replace it with a "Re5?!". Perhaps GM Bryan should retract his "!" from Tal's 21...Nf4?! too.

I also said that if you are one to throw a bucket of paint on a canvas (actually THROW it) and call it art...well, we are arguing on totally different planes and must leave it at that.

I always thought that appreciation of art was an entirely personal experience? A very subjective thing.

So, I've addressed both. That's it. I've no interest in arguing for arguments sake.

Fair enough.

Boban Stanojevic is about the only one making any good point here in my opinion...and I'll leave it at that.

Boban essentially said that engine style is hard to quantify and quite subjective, which I agree with, which ipsofacto, means you agree with me.

I'm glad we finished on a positive note.

[Ovyron]

But it does not matter - you are completely missing my point when I say that if someone thinks Re5 gets a !! (generally understood to be a really good move), then perhaps they need to spend more time understanding what is an objectively good move is...ie, perfect their chess understanding a bit more.

Oh yeah? Can you tell when a move is !! or ?!

What about this one:

[d]r2qr1k1/pp2bpp1/3pbn1p/2p5/2P5/2BB1N2/PPPQ1PPP/2KRR3 w - -

What do you think

Rxe6

deserves?

[d]r2qr1k1/pp2bpp1/3pRn1p/2p5/2P5/2BB1N2/PPPQ1PPP/2KR4 b - -

Was white better playing something else?

[leavenfish]

But it does not matter - you are completely missing my point when I say that if someone thinks Re5 gets a !! (generally understood to be a really good move), then perhaps they need to spend more time understanding what is an objectively good move is...ie, perfect their chess understanding a bit more.

Oh yeah? Can you tell when a move is !! or ?!

What about this one:

"Oh yeah? What about..." You sound like a 16 yr old...

Look, I don't want to get into the proverbial 'pissing match' with you either...besides, you clearly enjoy them too much.

But to answer your question and move on: Re6 would be played by most any competent player without a second thought. It's not even a question of 'style' so much (though White could not play it) as it is the clear choice. It does not deserve a ?! nor really even a !! simply because it is the obvious choice. 'obvious' do not really call for a !!.

1. It further weakens the light squares around the Black King.
2. It removes Blacks only 'good' bishop.
3. Black has yet to bring his QR into play...he's behind in development.
4. Black is about to play ...d5 and pretty well equalize.


Re5 in the earlier game in question is simply a bad choice. White had the better position...and pissed it away on a stupid move. Of course there is such a thing as 'style'...this just isn't it fellas.

That's enough. Now be done with this childishness.

[matejst]

First, I'd like to state that I enjoyed this thread. Both games and arguing.

Then, @ Ulysses:

So apparently my next 300 elo will be like this, play solid, avoid blunders, and games will be won.

The way to improve is just like you wrote: to play games at LTC, avoid tricks, but not to avoid complications: usually, it's the more disciplined player that wins. Here is a game played in my last year of activity, against Ljubomir Biljanic. He was a member of a much better team, at the time he was rated 2270 and thought he had to win at all cost. I didn't understand any of its moves, the game is a complete mess, full of blunders, and at the end, I was so tense that I couldn't see a simple mate. But it's chess (BTW, I wanted to see if I could post a game...).

[pgn][Event "Cup of Central Serbia 28. 4.2000"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2000.4.28"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stanojevic Boban"]
[Black "Biljanic Ljubomir"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C00"]
[Annotator "B. S."]
[Source ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d6 3.Nc3 Nd7
4.f4 e5 5.Nf3 exd4 6.Qxd4 {Today, I would have played Nxd4.}
c6 7.Be3 Qb6 8.Qd2 {?!} {A mistake.}
( 8.O-O-O Ngf6 9.h3 Be7 10.Bc4 Qxd4 11.Bxd4
b5 12.Bb3 $16 ) Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.Bc4 Nh6 {It seems it was a good move.}
11.O-O Be7 $14 ( 11...Nc5 {!?} ) 12.e5 Nf5 13.Bf2 dxe5 14.fxe5 Nc5 15.Kh1 h5 {?!}
( 15...O-O $15 ) 16.Nd4 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Rf8 {?} {A blunder. Never understood what he wanted with that move.}
18.Nb5 {?} {Another blunder.}
( 18.Bxc5 {!} Qxc5 19.Nb5 cxb5 20.Bxb5+ $18 ) cxb5
( 18...Ne4 {!} ) 19.Bxc5 Bxc5 $8 20.Bxb5+ Ke7 21.Qg5+ Ke6 {I was almost completely blind.}
22.Rb3 ( 22.Rbd1 {wins easily} ) Qa5 23.Bc4+ Kd7 24.e6+ Kc6 25.Qd5+
Kc7 26.Qe5+ Kd8 1-0[/pgn]

[leavenfish]

First, I'd like to state that I enjoyed this thread. Both games and arguing.

Then, @ Ulysses:

So apparently my next 300 elo will be like this, play solid, avoid blunders, and games will be won.

The way to improve is just like you wrote: to play games at LTC, avoid tricks, but not to avoid complications: usually, it's the more disciplined player that wins. Here is a game played in my last year of activity, against Ljubomir Biljanic. He was a member of a much better team, at the time he was rated 2270 and thought he had to win at all cost. I didn't understand any of its moves, the game is a complete mess, full of blunders, and at the end, I was so tense that I couldn't see a simple mate. But it's chess (BTW, I wanted to see if I could post a game...).

[pgn][Event "Cup of Central Serbia 28. 4.2000"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2000.4.28"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stanojevic Boban"]
[Black "Biljanic Ljubomir"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C00"]
[Annotator "B. S."]
[Source ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d6 3.Nc3 Nd7
4.f4 e5 5.Nf3 exd4 6.Qxd4 {Today, I would have played Nxd4.}
c6 7.Be3 Qb6 8.Qd2 {?!} {A mistake.}
( 8.O-O-O Ngf6 9.h3 Be7 10.Bc4 Qxd4 11.Bxd4
b5 12.Bb3 $16 ) Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.Bc4 Nh6 {It seems it was a good move.}
11.O-O Be7 $14 ( 11...Nc5 {!?} ) 12.e5 Nf5 13.Bf2 dxe5 14.fxe5 Nc5 15.Kh1 h5 {?!}
( 15...O-O $15 ) 16.Nd4 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Rf8 {?} {A blunder. Never understood what he wanted with that move.}
18.Nb5 {?} {Another blunder.}
( 18.Bxc5 {!} Qxc5 19.Nb5 cxb5 20.Bxb5+ $18 ) cxb5
( 18...Ne4 {!} ) 19.Bxc5 Bxc5 $8 20.Bxb5+ Ke7 21.Qg5+ Ke6 {I was almost completely blind.}
22.Rb3 ( 22.Rbd1 {wins easily} ) Qa5 23.Bc4+ Kd7 24.e6+ Kc6 25.Qd5+
Kc7 26.Qe5+ Kd8 1-0[/pgn]

Now, Sir, aren't you being a bit harsh...I think some might find ...Rf8 a 'style choice', not a 'blunder.

[matejst]

Dear Brian,

I almost seriously answered your comment about the blunder (Rf8), before understanding it...

[BrendanJNorman]

First, I'd like to state that I enjoyed this thread. Both games and arguing.

Then, @ Ulysses:

So apparently my next 300 elo will be like this, play solid, avoid blunders, and games will be won.

The way to improve is just like you wrote: to play games at LTC, avoid tricks, but not to avoid complications: usually, it's the more disciplined player that wins. Here is a game played in my last year of activity, against Ljubomir Biljanic. He was a member of a much better team, at the time he was rated 2270 and thought he had to win at all cost. I didn't understand any of its moves, the game is a complete mess, full of blunders, and at the end, I was so tense that I couldn't see a simple mate. But it's chess (BTW, I wanted to see if I could post a game...).

[pgn][Event "Cup of Central Serbia 28. 4.2000"]
[Site ""]
[Date "2000.4.28"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Stanojevic Boban"]
[Black "Biljanic Ljubomir"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C00"]
[Annotator "B. S."]
[Source ""]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d6 3.Nc3 Nd7
4.f4 e5 5.Nf3 exd4 6.Qxd4 {Today, I would have played Nxd4.}
c6 7.Be3 Qb6 8.Qd2 {?!} {A mistake.}
( 8.O-O-O Ngf6 9.h3 Be7 10.Bc4 Qxd4 11.Bxd4
b5 12.Bb3 $16 ) Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.Bc4 Nh6 {It seems it was a good move.}
11.O-O Be7 $14 ( 11...Nc5 {!?} ) 12.e5 Nf5 13.Bf2 dxe5 14.fxe5 Nc5 15.Kh1 h5 {?!}
( 15...O-O $15 ) 16.Nd4 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Rf8 {?} {A blunder. Never understood what he wanted with that move.}
18.Nb5 {?} {Another blunder.}
( 18.Bxc5 {!} Qxc5 19.Nb5 cxb5 20.Bxb5+ $18 ) cxb5
( 18...Ne4 {!} ) 19.Bxc5 Bxc5 $8 20.Bxb5+ Ke7 21.Qg5+ Ke6 {I was almost completely blind.}
22.Rb3 ( 22.Rbd1 {wins easily} ) Qa5 23.Bc4+ Kd7 24.e6+ Kc6 25.Qd5+
Kc7 26.Qe5+ Kd8 1-0[/pgn]

Now, Sir, aren't you being a bit harsh...I think some might find ...Rf8 a 'style choice', not a 'blunder.

Dude, you're just another engine slave.

You can only agree with a move through the lense of what Stockfish says.

Comparing a poor defensive move (Rf8 above) to Komodo Kinghunter's Re5 shows that your chess understanding needs a lot of work.

One is a speculative sacrifice, one is a poor defensive move.

Completely different themes.

And even your analysis of Uly's Rxe6 sacrifice above is superficial at best.

You quickly checked Rxe6 with SF/ASM/Komodo/Houdini or someone, seen that they don't disagree and then use your own limited understanding to pretend that the move is OBVIOUS (any competent player would play it??).

This is a form of belief bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_bias) in that you believe that the strongest chess entity available now is SF, so you run everything through that filter before forming your own opinions.

The fact is, that a LOT of players, even stronger than you, would not play Rxe6 in that position - and your explanation of the position was poor.

Which again, confirms for me that you simply tried to form your own opinion on how the hell SF would play such a move.

Must be too much ICCF and not enough ICC, huh?

The thought behind Rxe6 has nothing to do with black's only "good" bishop and his queen's rook.

It's more about the resulting weak light squares, black's rigid pawn structure and concrete tactical elements revolving around black's queen being on the d-file and ideas of a followup with stuff like Qe1>Bxf6>Qe4 or similar.

The rigidity of black's pawn structure hampers his mobility and makes defending against such ideas difficult - hence the exchange sacrifice provides adequate compensation.

As they say Brian, it's easy to be world champion, when sitting beside Stockfish.

Why not work on improving your chess understanding before assuming you know what I consider to be "style"?

You'll thank me later - so...you're welcome.

[leavenfish]

Dear Brian,

I almost seriously answered your comment about the blunder (Rf8), before understanding it...