very nice article on chess.com https://www.chess.com/blog/FirebrandX/k ... -was-wrong,
obviously, not all people are clueless.
Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
-
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:55 am
- Full name: Ted Wong
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
The conclusion of the article is that it's a draw... Did you read the article?
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
I did, but seemingly you did not.kinderchocolate wrote:The conclusion of the article is that it's a draw... Did you read the article?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:58 pm
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
In this position Kasparov resigned.
There is NO draw by repetition here.
In this point I agree with Lyudmil.
[d]1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - 14 45
Kind regards
Bernhard
There is NO draw by repetition here.
In this point I agree with Lyudmil.
[d]1r6/5kp1/RqQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - 14 45
Kind regards
Bernhard
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
ne sus proices margaritas.Rodolfo Leoni wrote:Indeed, a Do -> Loop. His parents forgot an "Exit Do" line in his genetics.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:sorry, could not get to the film, publicity intervened unpleasantly.tpoppins wrote:You know, Lyudmil, just when I think your trolling could not possibly get any more outrageous you post something like this ... and totally redeem yourself!Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:wonderland is right here on the forum, whenever I post some stuff.Rodolfo Leoni wrote: It's clear to everybody (except Lyudmil Tsvetkov) that 46.Ra6 leads to a clear draw, unless black blunders somewhere. White can win only in Wonderland (Alice in wonderland, never heardt of it? ).
I guess you could do a better job by using your multiple cores for analysing, for example, the position arising after the Qc4 and Qg4 moves, the last one I posted, which is of essence for deciding how easily white wins.
we still don't know the answer there.
de tal pal tal astilla.
cada loco con su mania.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
BREAK!Rodolfo Leoni wrote:Do
LoopLyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: how could they have known it then, lacking strong programs, when we still don't know it today, provided we have the like of SF?
for example, in the Qf5 defence line, critical for the final conclusion, white arrives by force after Qc4 capture and Qg4 check(Qd4 e3 Qc4 Qe5 Qg4) to the below position:
[d]3q2k1/6p1/3r1p1p/2R5/1P2Q3/2P4P/6P1/5K2 b - - 0 19
what is this?
how could you claim black has draw, when you simply don't know what is this?
did you analyse it?
did you play some games with it?
what if white actually wins, which is my estimation?
how you could possibly call a position where 90% of lines are white wins a draw?
that is certainly beyond my understanding.
-
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:31 am
- Location: PA USA
- Full name: Louis Zulli
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
Looks like another draw:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
anyway, white has so many winning lines, what if white deviates with 54.Qf3 instead of Qe7?
[d]3r2k1/6p1/3P1p2/4pP1p/1Pp5/2Pq1Q1P/6P1/R5K1 b - - 0 5
Code: Select all
0.00 54... e4 55. Qxd3 exd3 56. Kf2 Rxd6 57. Ke1 Rc6 58. Kd2 Kf8 59. b5 Rc8 60. Rb1 Ke7 61. b6 Rb8 62. Rb4 Kd6 63. Rxc4 Rxb6 64. Rb4 Ra6 65. Rb2 Ke5 66. Kxd3 Kxf5 67. Rb5+ Kf4 68. Rxh5 Kg3 69. Rh7 Kxg2 70. Rxg7+ Kxh3 (depth 72, 0:25:23)
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:49 pm
- Location: Italy
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
Hi Louis,zullil wrote: Looks like another draw:
Code: Select all
0.00 54... e4 55. Qxd3 exd3 56. Kf2 Rxd6 57. Ke1 Rc6 58. Kd2 Kf8 59. b5 Rc8 60. Rb1 Ke7 61. b6 Rb8 62. Rb4 Kd6 63. Rxc4 Rxb6 64. Rb4 Ra6 65. Rb2 Ke5 66. Kxd3 Kxf5 67. Rb5+ Kf4 68. Rxh5 Kg3 69. Rh7 Kxg2 70. Rxg7+ Kxh3 (depth 72, 0:25:23)
it's not matter of performing searches on his variations. He's pretending nobody has any chess knowledge here, so he can say any of his "90%" variations is a white win. And he sees +700 scores where we always see 0.00.
The fact is, he has no knowledge on endings or how to make an analysis. I'd advice him Averbach books about endings and Dvoretski about analysis.
F.S.I. Chess Teacher
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
I have read most of Dvoretsky's manuals in the original a long time ago.Rodolfo Leoni wrote:Hi Louis,zullil wrote: Looks like another draw:
Code: Select all
0.00 54... e4 55. Qxd3 exd3 56. Kf2 Rxd6 57. Ke1 Rc6 58. Kd2 Kf8 59. b5 Rc8 60. Rb1 Ke7 61. b6 Rb8 62. Rb4 Kd6 63. Rxc4 Rxb6 64. Rb4 Ra6 65. Rb2 Ke5 66. Kxd3 Kxf5 67. Rb5+ Kf4 68. Rxh5 Kg3 69. Rh7 Kxg2 70. Rxg7+ Kxh3 (depth 72, 0:25:23)
it's not matter of performing searches on his variations. He's pretending nobody has any chess knowledge here, so he can say any of his "90%" variations is a white win. And he sees +700 scores where we always see 0.00.
The fact is, he has no knowledge on endings or how to make an analysis. I'd advice him Averbach books about endings and Dvoretski about analysis.
but it is true, I somehow hate simple endgames and strongly prefer complex middlegame positions.
in the mg, your precious engines are even more clueless than what they are now, so much more easy to beat them.
why don't you also call Kasparov a troll, as he also supports the claim(after analysing with SF, btw.) the position is a white win?
knowledgeable people know what they are talking.
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: Kasparov-Deep Thought 1997 (second game)
ok, Louis, I will look at it.zullil wrote:Looks like another draw:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
anyway, white has so many winning lines, what if white deviates with 54.Qf3 instead of Qe7?
[d]3r2k1/6p1/3P1p2/4pP1p/1Pp5/2Pq1Q1P/6P1/R5K1 b - - 0 5
Code: Select all
0.00 54... e4 55. Qxd3 exd3 56. Kf2 Rxd6 57. Ke1 Rc6 58. Kd2 Kf8 59. b5 Rc8 60. Rb1 Ke7 61. b6 Rb8 62. Rb4 Kd6 63. Rxc4 Rxb6 64. Rb4 Ra6 65. Rb2 Ke5 66. Kxd3 Kxf5 67. Rb5+ Kf4 68. Rxh5 Kg3 69. Rh7 Kxg2 70. Rxg7+ Kxh3 (depth 72, 0:25:23)
I suppose you used 7-men.
but I have the strong feeling to just leave it all here, as it is really extremely difficult to handle 10 people at once, you included.
I hope you have not joined the Dark Side of the Force, your SF, I mean?
I simply lack the physical ability to answer 10 people at once, not to mention analyse 10 different positions, obviously I should be skipping something.
besides, it is really nasty when people call you troll 10 times per day?
what for?
because I suggest an alternave opinion, or alternative moves?
this seems very much to me like a witchhunt.