Terry McCracken wrote:
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
i remember another forum game i played in the Hiarcs Forum where
i operated the Mephisto Polgar 10 Mhz and Mark Uniacke operated his Scisys Simultano
Polgar had a tough endgame and a possible draw when she decided to exchange down.. to a hopelessly lost endgame
the annoying thing about that game was that Mark's Simultano did not realize it should trade down and was avoiding the exchange!
sadly.. Polgar kept offering the trade!!
The Simultano finally got fed up.. accepted the trade.. and coasted to the win
Much to my chagrin the game was published in Hallworth's "Selective Search" Mag ..
Tales From the Crypt Regards
Steve
Oh yeah, I remember that, it was quite embarrassing!
Terry McCracken wrote:That's why, particularly in the eighties computers were so easy to smash.
For the last 10 years they've been very difficult to win against and since 05, well my days of smashing computers is long over.
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
Qg6 appears to look good to computers at low depth. GarboChess JS still likes it at 5 ply (switches to hxg6 at 6 ply).
Here it it's rather optimistic view of Qxg6
Ply:5 Score:3772 Nodes:44181 NPS:68075 Qxg6 Qg3 Re4 Bf4 Nxf4
lkaufman wrote:
I'm able to log in again now, thanks to Sam. I play 34.hxg6. My only chance is to weaken the Black king. ..Re5 was a bit strange looking, but perhaps not a bad move.
Well Connie finally goes haywire with all of the possible Pins,Skewers,Discovered Checks ,Forks and Captures
She decides to recapture the P in the worst possible way with the disastrous ...
34..Qxg6
[d]6k1/p1pr1p1p/1p4q1/3nr1B1/2Bp2R1/1Q6/P4P1K/8 w - - 0 34
Excellently played by GM Kaufman
Hopefully she can still cling on to the draw
Sigh Regards
Steve
It will be interesting to see GM Kaufman's reply. Black's ...Qg6 does not look as bad to me as maybe it should.
I think that after this move Larry is likely to win the game, even if Connie still technically has the win (which I'm not at all sure of.)
Unless I am blinded, after the obvious Qg3 white gets most of the material back (netither h5 or f5 seems to help, because of Qxe5 and later Qe8+ Qxd7 or Qxe5-Bxd5+, respectively), which means Connie is toasted. The black pawns will start falling like flies.
Miguel
That was my first-glance opinion too. I said a while back that the h4 stuff could be a problem for a non-deep-searcher here as one mistake and the roof falls in.
shingles-in-hair regards,
Bob
(typical Steve sign-off)
More Like Shingles -in -Grey -Hair ..after that Howler
how many Class A players would actually allow the Q to step into a pin like that?
None.
anyway.. Larry Set this up beautifully and deserves full credit
every last piece in his diminished arsenal aimed at the King..
Pins traps and pitfalls...
If Connie does manage to loss this game ..she will be
Terry McCracken wrote:That's why, particularly in the eighties computers were so easy to smash.
For the last 10 years they've been very difficult to win against and since 05, well my days of smashing computers is long over.
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
Qg6 appears to look good to computers at low depth. GarboChess JS still likes it at 5 ply (switches to hxg6 at 6 ply).
Here it it's rather optimistic view of Qxg6
Ply:5 Score:3772 Nodes:44181 NPS:68075 Qxg6 Qg3 Re4 Bf4 Nxf4
I don't think we should be spewing out variations - this is supposed to be Larry vs Connie, right? And so we should probably not be giving computer analysis or our own analysis - just for the sake of decorum.
Terry McCracken wrote:That's why, particularly in the eighties computers were so easy to smash.
For the last 10 years they've been very difficult to win against and since 05, well my days of smashing computers is long over.
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
Qg6 appears to look good to computers at low depth. GarboChess JS still likes it at 5 ply (switches to hxg6 at 6 ply).
Here it it's rather optimistic view of Qxg6
Ply:5 Score:3772 Nodes:44181 NPS:68075 Qxg6 Qg3 Re4 Bf4 Nxf4
I don't think we should be spewing out variations - this is supposed to be Larry vs Connie, right? And so we should probably not be giving computer analysis or our own analysis - just for the sake of decorum.
Is guess the move ok? Either for one or both sides without analysis? Steve was fine with it and Larry, I don't think said anything about it.
Terry McCracken wrote:That's why, particularly in the eighties computers were so easy to smash.
For the last 10 years they've been very difficult to win against and since 05, well my days of smashing computers is long over.
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
Qg6 appears to look good to computers at low depth. GarboChess JS still likes it at 5 ply (switches to hxg6 at 6 ply).
Here it it's rather optimistic view of Qxg6
Ply:5 Score:3772 Nodes:44181 NPS:68075 Qxg6 Qg3 Re4 Bf4 Nxf4
I don't think we should be spewing out variations - this is supposed to be Larry vs Connie, right? And so we should probably not be giving computer analysis or our own analysis - just for the sake of decorum.
guessing Connies move is not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But anything more than that is really not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
Is guess the move ok? Either for one or both sides without analysis? Steve was fine with it and Larry, I don't think said anything about it.
Guessing Connies move may not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But even doing that could give Larry an idea - for instance a move that Larry didn't think of that she might make later. It's not something you would do in a tournament for sure.
But anything more than that is definitely not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
This is not a game where we are supposed to be helping Larry play.
If we want to do this we should set up a different match where we vote or consult and are free to shout out suggestions and ideas.
Terry McCracken wrote:That's why, particularly in the eighties computers were so easy to smash.
For the last 10 years they've been very difficult to win against and since 05, well my days of smashing computers is long over.
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
Qg6 appears to look good to computers at low depth. GarboChess JS still likes it at 5 ply (switches to hxg6 at 6 ply).
Here it it's rather optimistic view of Qxg6
Ply:5 Score:3772 Nodes:44181 NPS:68075 Qxg6 Qg3 Re4 Bf4 Nxf4
I don't think we should be spewing out variations - this is supposed to be Larry vs Connie, right? And so we should probably not be giving computer analysis or our own analysis - just for the sake of decorum.
guessing Connies move is not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But anything more than that is really not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
Is guess the move ok? Either for one or both sides without analysis? Steve was fine with it and Larry, I don't think said anything about it.
Guessing Connies move may not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But even doing that could give Larry an idea - for instance a move that Larry didn't think of that she might make later. It's not something you would do in a tournament for sure.
But anything more than that is definitely not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
This is not a game where we are supposed to be helping Larry play.
If we want to do this we should set up a different match where we vote or consult and are free to shout out suggestions and ideas.
Well, he's likely got the game in the bag without our help. Connie gave a present as we all know. Too bad Steve said it was ok and too bad I asked him...should have asked Larry, if anyone.
Terry McCracken wrote:That's why, particularly in the eighties computers were so easy to smash.
For the last 10 years they've been very difficult to win against and since 05, well my days of smashing computers is long over.
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
Qg6 appears to look good to computers at low depth. GarboChess JS still likes it at 5 ply (switches to hxg6 at 6 ply).
Here it it's rather optimistic view of Qxg6
Ply:5 Score:3772 Nodes:44181 NPS:68075 Qxg6 Qg3 Re4 Bf4 Nxf4
I don't think we should be spewing out variations - this is supposed to be Larry vs Connie, right? And so we should probably not be giving computer analysis or our own analysis - just for the sake of decorum.
guessing Connies move is not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But anything more than that is really not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
Is guess the move ok? Either for one or both sides without analysis? Steve was fine with it and Larry, I don't think said anything about it.
Guessing Connies move may not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But even doing that could give Larry an idea - for instance a move that Larry didn't think of that she might make later. It's not something you would do in a tournament for sure.
But anything more than that is definitely not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
This is not a game where we are supposed to be helping Larry play.
If we want to do this we should set up a different match where we vote or consult and are free to shout out suggestions and ideas.
I think, given the lack of seriousness about this game, the kibitzing is probably OK. There was lots of kibitzing when Mike played Deep thought in r.g.c.c years ago. It probably actually makes it more fun for the human to see other lines of thought (that are probably nowhere near as good as his own of course).
Terry McCracken wrote:That's why, particularly in the eighties computers were so easy to smash.
For the last 10 years they've been very difficult to win against and since 05, well my days of smashing computers is long over.
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
Qg6 appears to look good to computers at low depth. GarboChess JS still likes it at 5 ply (switches to hxg6 at 6 ply).
Here it it's rather optimistic view of Qxg6
Ply:5 Score:3772 Nodes:44181 NPS:68075 Qxg6 Qg3 Re4 Bf4 Nxf4
I don't think we should be spewing out variations - this is supposed to be Larry vs Connie, right? And so we should probably not be giving computer analysis or our own analysis - just for the sake of decorum.
guessing Connies move is not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But anything more than that is really not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
Is guess the move ok? Either for one or both sides without analysis? Steve was fine with it and Larry, I don't think said anything about it.
Guessing Connies move may not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But even doing that could give Larry an idea - for instance a move that Larry didn't think of that she might make later. It's not something you would do in a tournament for sure.
But anything more than that is definitely not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
This is not a game where we are supposed to be helping Larry play.
If we want to do this we should set up a different match where we vote or consult and are free to shout out suggestions and ideas.
If kibitzing is not allowed, I do not see the purpose of doing this public. It takes all the fun out of it!
Terry McCracken wrote:That's why, particularly in the eighties computers were so easy to smash.
For the last 10 years they've been very difficult to win against and since 05, well my days of smashing computers is long over.
Still, Qg6?? was a bit shocking at first sight. I had expected the Connie to either play something weaker than it had far earlier in the game, it hadn't, then in the last two moves it starts to really play strange stuff, Re5(?), Re8 was obvious and now one of the worst mistakes I've seen even from a dedicated from the mid eighties. Larry got what he needed all at once, amazing.
Qg6 appears to look good to computers at low depth. GarboChess JS still likes it at 5 ply (switches to hxg6 at 6 ply).
Here it it's rather optimistic view of Qxg6
Ply:5 Score:3772 Nodes:44181 NPS:68075 Qxg6 Qg3 Re4 Bf4 Nxf4
I don't think we should be spewing out variations - this is supposed to be Larry vs Connie, right? And so we should probably not be giving computer analysis or our own analysis - just for the sake of decorum.
guessing Connies move is not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But anything more than that is really not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
Is guess the move ok? Either for one or both sides without analysis? Steve was fine with it and Larry, I don't think said anything about it.
Guessing Connies move may not out of line because Connie cannot hear you. But even doing that could give Larry an idea - for instance a move that Larry didn't think of that she might make later. It's not something you would do in a tournament for sure.
But anything more than that is definitely not right - we are talking about a game in progress. Someone might come up with an idea that Larry didn't notice or think about - and some people are following the game with computer analsysis, which is going to be better than even Larry can do in most situations.
This is not a game where we are supposed to be helping Larry play.
If we want to do this we should set up a different match where we vote or consult and are free to shout out suggestions and ideas.
I think, given the lack of seriousness about this game, the kibitzing is probably OK. There was lots of kibitzing when Mike played Deep thought in r.g.c.c years ago. It probably actually makes it more fun for the human to see other lines of thought (that are probably nowhere near as good as his own of course).
Yeah, but my lines are damn good...maybe stick with initial moves in my case or in anycase a computer might be used?
(typical Steve sign-off)
