On Oct 4, 3:37 pm, help bot wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:53 am, Sanny wrote:
It sucks. Seems like some tactical blunders on both sides. Why is
this good?
Please provide the PGN analysis by a chess engine then we can decide.
Here is a game between Zebediah and Master Level at GetClub.
It was for the first time Master was able to take 2 pawns. Still
Zebediah managed to win.
The problem seems to be that Sanny is not a strong
enough player to see that his Master level did not in
fact "take" two pawns only to later lose after a
tremendous comeback, ala professional wrestling.
My view is that his program simply can't defend and
this was deftly exploited by Zebediah, although not in
a particularly impressive manner. The finish reminds
me of computer play, which Sanny himself has opined
is a distinct possibility with Zeb. But I do not rule out
that this funky ...Qe8 business could perhaps be a
popular book-sacrifice line; I've seen worse. And there
have been occasions in which even weak players like
myself have spotted such tactics *OTB*. One such
game had me feeling very proud of myself for out-
sacrificing a decent opponent in an incalculable mess
of a position -- until I got home and Fritz showed me
two dozen improvements for both sides!
-- help bot
Could you analyze this game on Fritz
Okay, you want to know some of the "key" happenings
in that game? Black had "compensation" for the pawn he
sacrificed (or hung) on d6, but ...Qe8 was not necessarily
the best way to make use of it. White was fine if he had
only retreated his QB to e3, blocking the e-file so he could
catch up in development and castle. Even after the sac'
on d5, White had an escape with Qc1 -- returning the
piece so he could get caught up in development. When
he tried to hold onto the material at that point, he hanged
himself because his King was caught in the center and
the pinned piece was mincemeat anyway.
Some moves earning the computer's stamp of approval
we ...Re8, Nd5, the sac' on d5, ...Qe8+, ...Nxd4, ...Qb5+,
...Ne2+, Qxe2 and so forth. In other words, it was as if a
computer took over once Zeb realized he might lose. :D
Personally, I don't like hanging/sac'ing pawns like this
for a speculative or incalculable attack. I will do it when I
have no good alternatives, as in the King's Gambit game
where I had missed Bc4 and was down a pawn. But it is
not good to get in the habit of relying on faulty defense in
order for these attacks to work out. According to the
computer, White had many opportunities to improve here,
yet even without them, he might well have escaped with
Qc1, just giving it all back in one fell swoop. I won't
complain that the program needs to focus more on King
safety or developing, not snatching pawns, because if it
gets good enough at tactics it may well get away with
this sort of thing, just as it *almost* did here.
-- help bot- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Now Zebediah finds it difficult to win Master Level, But he is able to
win by playing hard.
Earlier he used to beat iMaster in 20-30 Moves. Now last two games I
find he is taking 40-50 Moves to win Master Level. In he usaually
loose a pawn in the middle game but he wins when end game comes.
You will now unable to beat the Master Level. Try playing with Normal
Level and let me know if you can win with Normal Level?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at:
http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html