GM Kaufman v.Novag Constellation 3.6 QR Odds (Moves 1-40)

[Steve B]

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).

Kibitzing is perfectly OK
i did mention in my lead post of the thread that comments are welcome but not the posting of Engine analysis

i take it on good faith that when a member posts a line he is doing so from working on his own and not using an engine
Garys post was for an engine searching very shallow and there is no way Larry will follow that advice(although i wish he did)
my reply to Gary's post was in jest of course


besides ..the whole game is based upon mutual trust
i trust the GM will not use any engines and to time himself for 3 minutes per move
he trusts me to be using Connie and not Crafty on 1024 cores
i also trust that if a post does contain an extended line that the GM will ignor it

this is the 5th forum game we have played here all under the same format
i think the game is proceeding as the others and is quite enjoyable even though Connie just played a knee-slapper

Move coming up next Regards
Steve

[Steve B]

If kibitzing is not allowed, I do not see the purpose of doing this public. It takes all the fun out of it!

Miguel

Exactly Regards
Steve

[Steve B]

Larry is once again unable to make a post, so I will relay his response:

Meanwhile I'm unable to log in again to TalkChess for some reason, although I can read everything there. So please forward my reply and comment:

"I play 35.Qg3, defending the bishop, attacking the rook and threatening to pin the queen. It seems that Black must return some material. The tactics appear to me to be five ply deep on Black's last move, so either I'm missing some delaying sequence or else Connie only managed a 4 ply search on that move."

So Larry plays 35. Qg3

Don

Thanks Don for relaying Larry's move once again
i dont know why he is having all of this trouble given that the TCADMIN helped him to reset his account

anyway.....

Connie i guess shows us why she moved the R to e5 on the move before last
here.. she unleashes ..in Judit Polgar like fashion ..the shocker...

35..Rf5

[d] 6k1/p1pr1p1p/1p4q1/3n1rB1/2Bp2R1/6Q1/P4P1K/8 w - - 0 35

removes the R from attack,threatens the f2 pawn with check and has a "rattling effect "on the psyche of the opponent

Whom i kidding? regards
Steve

[Terry McCracken]

Larry is once again unable to make a post, so I will relay his response:

Meanwhile I'm unable to log in again to TalkChess for some reason, although I can read everything there. So please forward my reply and comment:

"I play 35.Qg3, defending the bishop, attacking the rook and threatening to pin the queen. It seems that Black must return some material. The tactics appear to me to be five ply deep on Black's last move, so either I'm missing some delaying sequence or else Connie only managed a 4 ply search on that move."

So Larry plays 35. Qg3

Don

Thanks Don for relaying Larry's move once again
i dont know why he is having all of this trouble given that the TCADMIN helped him to reset his account

anyway.....

Connie i guess shows us why she moved the R to e5 on the move before last
here.. she unleashes ..in Judit Polgar like fashion ..the shocker...

35..Rf5

[d] 6k1/p1pr1p1p/1p4q1/3n1rB1/2Bp2R1/6Q1/P4P1K/8 w - - 0 35

removes the R from attack,threatens the f2 pawn with check and has a "rattling effect "on the psyche of the opponent

Whom i kidding? regards
Steve

36. Bh4..Nf4 37. Rxg6+..fg 38. Bg5..b5 39. Bb3..Ne6 40. Bd2


The first few moves are pretty much forced. Interesting how the Connie defends.

[Don]

Larry is once again unable to make a post, so I will relay his response:

Meanwhile I'm unable to log in again to TalkChess for some reason, although I can read everything there. So please forward my reply and comment:

"I play 35.Qg3, defending the bishop, attacking the rook and threatening to pin the queen. It seems that Black must return some material. The tactics appear to me to be five ply deep on Black's last move, so either I'm missing some delaying sequence or else Connie only managed a 4 ply search on that move."

So Larry plays 35. Qg3

Don

Thanks Don for relaying Larry's move once again
i dont know why he is having all of this trouble given that the TCADMIN helped him to reset his account

anyway.....

Connie i guess shows us why she moved the R to e5 on the move before last
here.. she unleashes ..in Judit Polgar like fashion ..the shocker...

35..Rf5

[d] 6k1/p1pr1p1p/1p4q1/3n1rB1/2Bp2R1/6Q1/P4P1K/8 w - - 0 35

removes the R from attack,threatens the f2 pawn with check and has a "rattling effect "on the psyche of the opponent

Whom i kidding? regards
Steve

36. Bh4..Nf4 37. Rxg6+..fg 38. Bg5..b5 39. Bb3..Ne6 40. Bd2


The first few moves are pretty much forced. Interesting how the Connie defends.

Except that you have illegal moves in the line you are showing.

[Terry McCracken]

Larry is once again unable to make a post, so I will relay his response:

Meanwhile I'm unable to log in again to TalkChess for some reason, although I can read everything there. So please forward my reply and comment:

"I play 35.Qg3, defending the bishop, attacking the rook and threatening to pin the queen. It seems that Black must return some material. The tactics appear to me to be five ply deep on Black's last move, so either I'm missing some delaying sequence or else Connie only managed a 4 ply search on that move."

So Larry plays 35. Qg3

Don

Thanks Don for relaying Larry's move once again
i dont know why he is having all of this trouble given that the TCADMIN helped him to reset his account

anyway.....

Connie i guess shows us why she moved the R to e5 on the move before last
here.. she unleashes ..in Judit Polgar like fashion ..the shocker...

35..Rf5

[d] 6k1/p1pr1p1p/1p4q1/3n1rB1/2Bp2R1/6Q1/P4P1K/8 w - - 0 35

removes the R from attack,threatens the f2 pawn with check and has a "rattling effect "on the psyche of the opponent

Whom i kidding? regards
Steve

36. Bh4..Nf4 37. Rxg6+..fg 38. Bg5..b5 39. Bb3..Ne6 40. Bd2


The first few moves are pretty much forced. Interesting how the Connie defends.

Except that you have illegal moves in the line you are showing.

Yes, it should read 37..hg.

[gladius]

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

And hxg6:
Ply:7 Score:3586 Nodes:293279 NPS:67327 hxg6 Bb5 Qd6 Bxd7 Qxd7 Qd1 c5

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.

My intent here was definitely not to provide advice to Larry, it was about exploring why weak computers even considered Qxg6. The analysis is from an engine written in Javascript, with an ELO of perhaps 1800.

Also Qxg6 and Qg3 had already been played. I don't think the Conny is going to read the forum to get hints for Re4 .

Regardless, it was probably OT, next time I'll post in a seperate thread.

[Don]

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

And hxg6:
Ply:7 Score:3586 Nodes:293279 NPS:67327 hxg6 Bb5 Qd6 Bxd7 Qxd7 Qd1 c5

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.

My intent here was definitely not to provide advice to Larry, it was about exploring why weak computers even considered Qxg6. The analysis is from an engine written in Javascript, with an ELO of perhaps 1800.

Also Qxg6 and Qg3 had already been played. I don't think the Conny is going to read the forum to get hints for Re4 .

Regardless, it was probably OT, next time I'll post in a seperate thread.

Evidently, nobody cares anyway so feel free to suggest ideas to Larry.

This is pretty informal anyway and would by no means hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny. So let's just keep it fun.

[michiguel]

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?

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

Ebay Bound Regards
Steve

Don't be so cruel! Haven't you seen the movie Toy Story?

Miguel

[Don]

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

And hxg6:
Ply:7 Score:3586 Nodes:293279 NPS:67327 hxg6 Bb5 Qd6 Bxd7 Qxd7 Qd1 c5

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.

I've been analyzing the game with a computer - and I still think Larry has his work cut out for him. In fact, I think the game may even be a technical win for black if black plays really well, or at least a very difficult draw for white.

However, I don't think Connie will play the rest of the game that well - another mistake on Connie's part and Larry will win.

I give Larry about 95% chance of winning here since the Connies pawns look so dangerous - but I expect Connie to make another game changing mistake in the next few moves as I doubt she will play the endgame as well as she played the middlegame.

If I remember correctly Connie has no hash tables - and this is going to be a real killer as more pieces eventually come off the board.

Meanwhile I'm playing this out using stockfish 1.8, I'm letting stockfish play each move with a 1 billion node search - just to see if black has enough advantage to win.