On Mar 7, 4:12 pm, Larry Tapper wrote:


But I do believe there are plenty of stronger
GMs around who could give Rybka a tougher
match with these odds. Joel Benjamin, for
instance, got the upperhand (to say the least)
in the openings, game after game, but he
crumbled in the middlegame. I have yet to
see GM Dzindzi make much of his odds in
the opening, and half the time his extra pawn
gets doubled or becomes useless, due to his
own clumsy play or to wild King assaults in
which the pawn-count is rendered moot.

Bear in mind that Dzindzi is 63 years old.

Even now I would bet serious money that he would mop the floor with
you giving you 5-1 blitz odds.


Interesting that you are eager to give me *time*
odds, not material (like say, two Knights). :D

I also notice you avoided the issues I raised
above. One issue was the fact that GM RD
kept hanging his extra pawn, or else getting it
doubled. What I assume is the final game was
a perfect example; in that game, RD just hung
his h-pawn due to carelessness, then the
operator generously "gave" him a draw where
there was still some play left for Rybka; I've
seen it win such positions many times, when
facing other GM-strength chess programs
(but not Zappa!).

In sharp contrast, GM Benjamin normally
obtained a clearly winning advantage in his
odds match, then was squashed in the
middlegame, or else squeaked out a draw.


In his prime he used to be able to do
that with IMs, spotting them several cognacs to boot. Ask anyone who
saw him play in NYC in the 80s.


In 1978, GM Dzindzi ranked ahead of Gary
Kasparov, according to Chessmetrics' data.
GMs Karpov and Kortchnoi were at the top
of the lists -- which brings us back to the
fact that these guys are far beyond their
best days.

I did a little reading, and it turns out that
this match was played at a very fast pace:
just 45 minutes per side, plus ten lousy
seconds per move! No wonder the quality
of play was unimpressive. This compares
well to some of my recent experiences at
the total-patzer level, where the time control
was game/61 minutes, with some games
using a time-delay clock, and some not.
Some games finish without any apparent
affect from time-pressure, while others
enter a phase in which the clock is *the*
decisive factor.

My guess is that the quick time controls
are intended to make "less work" for the
grandmasters who have agreed to play, but
this has a detrimental effect on the quality
of play, as does the fact that neither player
is "booked up" once the pawn is removed.

The closest thing I saw to a "book" line
was the game where Black offered the
f-pawn, and then played the old line we've
seen from the days of Paul Morphy (...e6).
I wanted to scream: "Advance Variation!"
when I saw 1 e4 e6, 2. d4 d5, since it
is impossible for Black to play the French
Defense properly without the pawn-break
....f6 (the missing pawn!).


-- help bot