Norm Pollock wrote:I am referring to the 11th move by white.
What about it?
It was written as "Ndxb5" when it should have been written as "Nxb5" because the other knight on c3 was pinned to the King, and only the knight on d4 could legally take the piece on b5. Disambiguity notation should only be used (I think that is the pgn specification) when there IS ambiguity.
Oh, well that is the way Chessbase 10 is displaying them when I do copy game, after I enter the moves from the website.
Unless the pgn specs were recently changed, Chessbase is wrong. Perhaps they are knowingly wrong because they are making it easier for the reader who may not be aware of the illegality of one of the knight moves.
... An example of this would be a position with two white knights, one on square c3 and one on square g1 and a vacant square e2 with White to move. Both knights attack square e2, and if both could legally move there, then a file disambiguation is needed; the (nonchecking) knight moves would be "Nce2" and "Nge2". However, if the white king were at square e1 and a black bishop were at square b4 with a vacant square d2 (thus an absolute pin of the white knight at square c3), then only one white knight (the one at square g1) could move to square e2: "Ne2".
Yes you are correct in that it is a bug.
I thought this could be corrected here:
but it does not change anything other the format that the PGN is printed in and not the notation itself. I researched chessbase.com and this was all I could find:
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
Jack Lad wrote:He should have played 19. Nb5! when he had the chance - a golden opportunity to win was missed.
Yes, you know better than Anand the WCC or Kramnik the Classical WCC.
Why do state that you know better than the best? You just give a move with no analysis and say it wins!?
This type of kibtzing is frowned upon everywhere but you insist on doing it and the moderators and members let it pass!
I won't let it pass! Either you back your claims or don't say anything at all!
I didn't see you back up any of your claims. You're particularly known for speaking ex cathedra pretty much all the time. But now you bark orders as if you're in charge and everyone should obey you. Your interference is much more annoying than just letting people speak their opinions on the chess position peaceably.
Terry McCracken wrote:
It's one thing to say Nb5 looks good or interesting but it's an entirely different matter to claim it wins! Even worse when no analysis is given and the person who makes such bodacious claims isn't at all qualified to make them!
If you or the moderators or members can't see this as problem the there's even a bigger problem with this site than I thought!
It's time this type of uninformed kibitzing stopped!
There's no win for White! I'm sure if all lines are combed through you'll find 19. Nb5 doesn't win and Kramnik couldn't afford to swap Queens so early if he wanted to find a win at a latter point, hence 19. Nb5!? is only good if you're going after the draw!
I backed my claim in this post Matt! I've also gave brief points in other threads and posts.
I'm not barking orders, I'm asking for proper netiquette during these games!
If you knew how strong players feel when the lower ranks kibitz out of turn then you might have a clue! Until then mind your tongue!
I'm not centering JL out, this applies to all!
As far as ex cathedra don't be glib with me until you've beaten a Grandmaster Matt! I can honestly make that claim and no one else in this thread can.
There are some here who can, but they refrained from giving their opinions and assessments of the match thus far.
IOW
ENOUGH!
Even though you've beaten a grandmaster once, we are all on the same level as far as kibitzing goes. All it takes is a current program and a good computer...
And a few IMs!
As I told you before a computer and program doesn't put you on equel footing as the hobby player hasn't the understanding of chess like a tournament player, expert or master let alone a grandmaster.
You can't buy that ability! You have to earn it with hard work!
Would you consider yourself as qualified as a MD to diagnose and treat a patient with merely a computer and a program known as an expert system? Would you allow a a non medical person to use the expert system to treat you?
You see, that is what you're saying by telling me, an expert, you're on the same level with your expert system in chess.
Now tell me again as a non expert, you're now as qualified as I am and see how ridiculous that is!
Well, as a non expert player with Rybka 3 and a quad computer, I think I would do very well in a match against you.
Jack Lad wrote:He should have played 19. Nb5! when he had the chance - a golden opportunity to win was missed.
Yes, you know better than Anand the WCC or Kramnik the Classical WCC.
Why do state that you know better than the best? You just give a move with no analysis and say it wins!?
This type of kibtzing is frowned upon everywhere but you insist on doing it and the moderators and members let it pass!
I won't let it pass! Either you back your claims or don't say anything at all!
I didn't see you back up any of your claims. You're particularly known for speaking ex cathedra pretty much all the time. But now you bark orders as if you're in charge and everyone should obey you. Your interference is much more annoying than just letting people speak their opinions on the chess position peaceably.
Terry McCracken wrote:
It's one thing to say Nb5 looks good or interesting but it's an entirely different matter to claim it wins! Even worse when no analysis is given and the person who makes such bodacious claims isn't at all qualified to make them!
If you or the moderators or members can't see this as problem the there's even a bigger problem with this site than I thought!
It's time this type of uninformed kibitzing stopped!
There's no win for White! I'm sure if all lines are combed through you'll find 19. Nb5 doesn't win and Kramnik couldn't afford to swap Queens so early if he wanted to find a win at a latter point, hence 19. Nb5!? is only good if you're going after the draw!
I backed my claim in this post Matt! I've also gave brief points in other threads and posts.
I'm not barking orders, I'm asking for proper netiquette during these games!
If you knew how strong players feel when the lower ranks kibitz out of turn then you might have a clue! Until then mind your tongue!
I'm not centering JL out, this applies to all!
As far as ex cathedra don't be glib with me until you've beaten a Grandmaster Matt! I can honestly make that claim and no one else in this thread can.
There are some here who can, but they refrained from giving their opinions and assessments of the match thus far.
IOW
ENOUGH!
Even though you've beaten a grandmaster once, we are all on the same level as far as kibitzing goes. All it takes is a current program and a good computer...
And a few IMs!
As I told you before a computer and program doesn't put you on equel footing as the hobby player hasn't the understanding of chess like a tournament player, expert or master let alone a grandmaster.
You can't buy that ability! You have to earn it with hard work!
Would you consider yourself as qualified as a MD to diagnose and treat a patient with merely a computer and a program known as an expert system? Would you allow a a non medical person to use the expert system to treat you?
You see, that is what you're saying by telling me, an expert, you're on the same level with your expert system in chess.
Now tell me again as a non expert, you're now as qualified as I am and see how ridiculous that is!
Well, as a non expert player with Rybka 3 and a quad computer, I think I would do very well in a match against you.
Jack Lad wrote:He should have played 19. Nb5! when he had the chance - a golden opportunity to win was missed.
Yes, you know better than Anand the WCC or Kramnik the Classical WCC.
Why do state that you know better than the best? You just give a move with no analysis and say it wins!?
This type of kibtzing is frowned upon everywhere but you insist on doing it and the moderators and members let it pass!
I won't let it pass! Either you back your claims or don't say anything at all!
I didn't see you back up any of your claims. You're particularly known for speaking ex cathedra pretty much all the time. But now you bark orders as if you're in charge and everyone should obey you. Your interference is much more annoying than just letting people speak their opinions on the chess position peaceably.
Terry McCracken wrote:
It's one thing to say Nb5 looks good or interesting but it's an entirely different matter to claim it wins! Even worse when no analysis is given and the person who makes such bodacious claims isn't at all qualified to make them!
If you or the moderators or members can't see this as problem the there's even a bigger problem with this site than I thought!
It's time this type of uninformed kibitzing stopped!
There's no win for White! I'm sure if all lines are combed through you'll find 19. Nb5 doesn't win and Kramnik couldn't afford to swap Queens so early if he wanted to find a win at a latter point, hence 19. Nb5!? is only good if you're going after the draw!
I backed my claim in this post Matt! I've also gave brief points in other threads and posts.
I'm not barking orders, I'm asking for proper netiquette during these games!
If you knew how strong players feel when the lower ranks kibitz out of turn then you might have a clue! Until then mind your tongue!
I'm not centering JL out, this applies to all!
As far as ex cathedra don't be glib with me until you've beaten a Grandmaster Matt! I can honestly make that claim and no one else in this thread can.
There are some here who can, but they refrained from giving their opinions and assessments of the match thus far.
IOW
ENOUGH!
Even though you've beaten a grandmaster once, we are all on the same level as far as kibitzing goes. All it takes is a current program and a good computer...
And a few IMs!
As I told you before a computer and program doesn't put you on equel footing as the hobby player hasn't the understanding of chess like a tournament player, expert or master let alone a grandmaster.
You can't buy that ability! You have to earn it with hard work!
Would you consider yourself as qualified as a MD to diagnose and treat a patient with merely a computer and a program known as an expert system? Would you allow a a non medical person to use the expert system to treat you?
You see, that is what you're saying by telling me, an expert, you're on the same level with your expert system in chess.
Now tell me again as a non expert, you're now as qualified as I am and see how ridiculous that is!
I agree that one needs to have an understanding of basic positional patterns, only masters possess such understanding. So they may fully well understand why the particular move was made, but I do think some 1700-1900's with the use of computer can understand some of the moves where the deep tactics is involved, I doubt they would have any understanding in positional play and strategical concepts arising in the game and yes I do think that in most GM games, positional play is important. As for McMad, I don't think he is a 1500 rated, he is certainly well over 2000's. I think he is entitled to say whatever he wants as long as he's talking about subject being discussed.
Btw, I do play at 2400's at playchess, and I've certainly beaten many IM's in real life but then again I haven't played any rated tournaments for long, rated tourneys rarely happen at the time, I don't see why beating the IM or GM is anything very special.
gerold wrote:Thanks Jack. I know there are many diff. ways to win that game.
Thanks for pointing out one.
Best to you,
Gerold.
You are welcome Gerold and there are also many ways to draw if white does not play accurately - infact perfect play by black may still be able to hold the draw. As I said either way it is very difficult for both sides but at least it would have given Kramnik a chance if he would have had the balls to take it.
You think Kramnik was too timid to play Nb5? No, he knew that wasn't the best way to attempt to win against a GM like Anand.
The fact is that game 8 was the first time he had the advantage against Anand but there was no way he could convert such a small advantage and it was a small advantage.
