Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 03:09 AM
Henri H. Arsenault
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kotov doubly cooked!

Kotov's "Think like a grandmaster!" is a great book with a lot of good
advice, so it is amusing that I found the very first diagram
explanation to be cooked not once, but twice: not only did Kotov miss
the winning move, but the move he gives as correct leaves White with
an inferior position!

The position is
1brr1k1
1b3pp1
pp2pqnp
3P2Q
3P4
1B4R1
PP1B1PPP
4R1K1

Here Kotov is explaining how a grandmaster goes about analyzing a
position to find the right move.

I'm no grandmaster, but when I tried to guess the right move without
looking, I convinced myself that Nxf7!! wins. But Kotov says that the
only winning move is N-g4. I couldn't find a refutation of my move by
Black, so I fired up Fritz8, and in about 3 seconds, Fritz came up
with the evaluation that the only winning move for white is indeed
Nxf7! Here is some of the analysis.

1.Ne5xf7 Qf6xf7
(...Kg8xf7 2.Re1xe6 and if Black does not take the Rook with the
Queen, the discovered check will be fatal)
(...Bb8xg3 2. Nf7xh6+ Kg8-f8 3. h2xg3 +- and White is a piece ahead
with a strong attack)
(Ng6-f4 2. Bb2xf4 Qf6xf4 3. Qh5-g6 and Black will have to give up the
Queen to avoid checkmate)
2. Bb3xe6 wins the queen

Kotov's analysis of 1. N-g4? is overlooks a saving move by Black.

Kotov considers 1. N-g4 Q-h5 2. NxP+ K-f8 and after exchanging Queens,
White wins. But he overlooked the response by Black 1...Qxd4!! 2.
Ng4xh6+ Kg8-f8 =/+ that leaves Black with a slight advantage.

It is rather extraordinary that the very first position in a classic
book by a grandmaster supposedly explaining how to analyze a position
gives a losing combination as winning, and fails to spot the winning
combination, and even more extraordinary that the error was discovered
by a quasi-patzer like me!

Kotov does not say which grandmaster was analyzing the position in a
tournament. When the book was first published, Kotov did not have a
computer to analyze the position, but then I found the winning move
without the help of a computer.True, I have been training my tactical
acumen with CTArt 3.0, but I doubt that it has sharpenened my tactical
abilities to grandmaster level in one week!...

Henri

Henri
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 09:41 AM
DAClUM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kotov does not say which grandmaster was analyzing the position in a
tournament. When the book was first published, Kotov did not have a
computer to analyze the position, but then I found the winning move
without the help of a computer.True, I have been training my tactical
acumen with CTArt 3.0, but I doubt that it has sharpenened my tactical
abilities to grandmaster level in one week!...

Henri


Certainly very interesting and I have found several things like this in a
couple of older chess books that were written before people could double
check stuff with computers (like teach yourself chess written in 1919 i
think). Are you absolutely sure that he wasn't explaining down a different
path that the game could have gone? Some of them say quite crazy stuff like
ignoring any attack from the middle square you could play like so and they
analize really deeply without considering obvious moves, just for demo
purposes. It doesn't sound like it though!



  #3   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 01:16 PM
Henri Arsenault
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "DAClUM"
wrote:

Certainly very interesting and I have found several things like this in a
couple of older chess books that were written before people could double
check stuff with computers (like teach yourself chess written in 1919 i
think). Are you absolutely sure that he wasn't explaining down a different
path that the game could have gone? Some of them say quite crazy stuff like
ignoring any attack from the middle square you could play like so and they
analize really deeply without considering obvious moves, just for demo
purposes. It doesn't sound like it though!


No, he was discussing the train of thought of a grandmaster, and even
explaining how he originally rejected the mmove N-g4 but then by deeper
analysis finally came to the conclusion that it was the winning move -
which is wrong. He mentions the move Nxf7 at the start as a candidate
move, but although he discusses other candidate moves, he does not discuss
this one any further. Unfortunately for Kotov, it is the winning move.

What is especially amusing is that this is the very first position
discussed in the book! I guess it should be moved into the chapter on how
grandmasters can make mistakes in analysis...

But aside from that, it is a good book, although I would not recommend it
to beginners. There is a lot of insight on how grandmasters think. The
discussion on how grandmasters think before getting into actual analysis
of specific moves is particularly interesting.

Henri
  #4   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 09:16 PM
Antonio Torrecillas
 
Posts: n/a
Default

En/na Henri H. Arsenault ha escrit:
Kotov's "Think like a grandmaster!" is a great book with a lot of good
advice, so it is amusing that I found the very first diagram
explanation to be cooked not once, but twice: not only did Kotov miss
the winning move, but the move he gives as correct leaves White with
an inferior position!
(...)
I'm no grandmaster, but when I tried to guess the right move without
looking, I convinced myself that Nxf7!! wins. But Kotov says that the
only winning move is N-g4. I couldn't find a refutation of my move by
Black, so I fired up Fritz8, and in about 3 seconds, Fritz came up
with the evaluation that the only winning move for white is indeed
Nxf7! Here is some of the analysis.

1.Ne5xf7 Qf6xf7
(...Kg8xf7 2.Re1xe6 and if Black does not take the Rook with the
Queen, the discovered check will be fatal)
(...Bb8xg3 2. Nf7xh6+ Kg8-f8 3. h2xg3 +- and White is a piece ahead
with a strong attack)
(Ng6-f4 2. Bb2xf4 Qf6xf4 3. Qh5-g6 and Black will have to give up the
Queen to avoid checkmate)
2. Bb3xe6 wins the queen

Kotov's analysis of 1. N-g4? is overlooks a saving move by Black.

Kotov considers 1. N-g4 Q-h5 2. NxP+ K-f8 and after exchanging Queens,
White wins. But he overlooked the response by Black 1...Qxd4!! 2.
Ng4xh6+ Kg8-f8 =/+ that leaves Black with a slight advantage.

It is rather extraordinary that the very first position in a classic
book by a grandmaster supposedly explaining how to analyze a position
gives a losing combination as winning, and fails to spot the winning
combination, and even more extraordinary that the error was discovered
by a quasi-patzer like me!

Kotov does not say which grandmaster was analyzing the position in a
tournament. When the book was first published, Kotov did not have a
computer to analyze the position, but then I found the winning move
without the help of a computer.True, I have been training my tactical
acumen with CTArt 3.0, but I doubt that it has sharpenened my tactical
abilities to grandmaster level in one week!...

Henri


After some minutes the veredict is similar...
Curiously second best by Fritz (Rxg6) is missing too in Kotov lines

Diag.1 - Pag.12
1brr2k1/1b3pp1/pp2pqnp/4N2Q/3P4/1B4R1/PP1B1PPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Fritz 8: (deep 14/14)

1. +- (3.56): 1.Nxf7 Bxg3 2.Nxh6+
2. = (-0.16): 1.Rxg6 fxg6 2.Nxg6 Bd5
3. =+ (-0.50): 1.Ng4 Qxd4 2.Nxh6+ Kf8
4. =+ (-0.66): 1.Cxg6 Axg3 2.hxg3
5. -/+ (-0.91): 1.Axe6 Dxe6 2.Cxg6 fxg6 3.Txg6 Td5 4.Texe6 Txh5 5.Te7
Ad5 6.Texg7+ Rh8

(Torrecillas, BCN 02.09.2004)

  #5   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 09:22 PM
Antonio Torrecillas
 
Posts: n/a
Default

En/na Antonio Torrecillas ha escrit:

Diag.1 - Pag.12
1brr2k1/1b3pp1/pp2pqnp/4N2Q/3P4/1B4R1/PP1B1PPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Fritz 8: (deep 14/14)

1. +- (3.56): 1.Nxf7 Bxg3 2.Nxh6+
2. = (-0.16): 1.Rxg6 fxg6 2.Nxg6 Bd5
3. =+ (-0.50): 1.Ng4 Qxd4 2.Nxh6+ Kf8
4. =+ (-0.66): 1.Cxg6 Axg3 2.hxg3
5. -/+ (-0.91): 1.Axe6 Dxe6 2.Cxg6 fxg6 3.Txg6 Td5 4.Texe6 Txh5 5.Te7
Ad5 6.Texg7+ Rh8

(Torrecillas, BCN 02.09.2004)


Sorry, I forgot tto traslate last two lines...
4 ...... 1.Nxg6 Bxg3 2.hxg3
5 ...... 1.Bxe6 Qxe6 2.Nxg6 fxg6 3.Rxg6 Rd5 etc



  #6   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 09:25 PM
drummerman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's interesting how computers illustrate how fallible human thinking
is. The first game in Logical Chess is, contraray to Chernev's "There
is no defense that will postpone the mate", a draw according to our
friend Fritz. Similarly, Ruben Fines "Longest Personal Combination"
in A Passion for Chess is flawed. This is good news for the human
race. Humans make mistakes and should accept this reality rather than
expecting perfection.


(Henri H. Arsenault) wrote in message ...
Kotov's "Think like a grandmaster!" is a great book with a lot of good
advice, so it is amusing that I found the very first diagram
explanation to be cooked not once, but twice: not only did Kotov miss
the winning move, but the move he gives as correct leaves White with
an inferior position!

The position is
1brr1k1
1b3pp1
pp2pqnp
3P2Q
3P4
1B4R1
PP1B1PPP
4R1K1

Here Kotov is explaining how a grandmaster goes about analyzing a
position to find the right move.

I'm no grandmaster, but when I tried to guess the right move without
looking, I convinced myself that Nxf7!! wins. But Kotov says that the
only winning move is N-g4. I couldn't find a refutation of my move by
Black, so I fired up Fritz8, and in about 3 seconds, Fritz came up
with the evaluation that the only winning move for white is indeed
Nxf7! Here is some of the analysis.

1.Ne5xf7 Qf6xf7
(...Kg8xf7 2.Re1xe6 and if Black does not take the Rook with the
Queen, the discovered check will be fatal)
(...Bb8xg3 2. Nf7xh6+ Kg8-f8 3. h2xg3 +- and White is a piece ahead
with a strong attack)
(Ng6-f4 2. Bb2xf4 Qf6xf4 3. Qh5-g6 and Black will have to give up the
Queen to avoid checkmate)
2. Bb3xe6 wins the queen

Kotov's analysis of 1. N-g4? is overlooks a saving move by Black.

Kotov considers 1. N-g4 Q-h5 2. NxP+ K-f8 and after exchanging Queens,
White wins. But he overlooked the response by Black 1...Qxd4!! 2.
Ng4xh6+ Kg8-f8 =/+ that leaves Black with a slight advantage.

It is rather extraordinary that the very first position in a classic
book by a grandmaster supposedly explaining how to analyze a position
gives a losing combination as winning, and fails to spot the winning
combination, and even more extraordinary that the error was discovered
by a quasi-patzer like me!

Kotov does not say which grandmaster was analyzing the position in a
tournament. When the book was first published, Kotov did not have a
computer to analyze the position, but then I found the winning move
without the help of a computer.True, I have been training my tactical
acumen with CTArt 3.0, but I doubt that it has sharpenened my tactical
abilities to grandmaster level in one week!...

Henri

Henri

  #7   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 09:43 PM
Henri H. Arsenault
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oops, I screwed up the position representation for those who don't
have the bopoki

1brr2k1
1b3pp1
pp2pqnp
4N2Q
3P4
1B4R1
4R1K1

I thik I got it right this time. Fritz had the correct position for
the analysis.

Henri
  #8   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 10:18 PM
Antonio Torrecillas
 
Posts: n/a
Default

En/na Henri H. Arsenault ha escrit:

Kotov's "Think like a grandmaster!" is a great book with a lot of good
advice, so it is amusing that I found the very first diagram
explanation to be cooked not once, but twice: not only did Kotov miss
the winning move, but the move he gives as correct leaves White with
an inferior position!
(...)
I'm no grandmaster, but when I tried to guess the right move without
looking, I convinced myself that Nxf7!! wins. But Kotov says that the
only winning move is N-g4. I couldn't find a refutation of my move by
Black, so I fired up Fritz8, and in about 3 seconds, Fritz came up
with the evaluation that the only winning move for white is indeed
Nxf7! Here is some of the analysis.

1.Ne5xf7 Qf6xf7
(...Bb8xg3 2. Nf7xh6+ Kg8-f8 3. h2xg3 +- and White is a piece ahead
with a strong attack)
2. Bb3xe6 wins the queen


An interesting question is what was the move who escaped to Kotov
attention.

When writing a book or an article a top GM is not as careful as he is
when is playing a game, ... but Henri lines seems very easy to
understand and to see for an average master.

I think the move/line who escaped to Kotov can be 1.Nxf7! Bxg3 2.Nxh6!
gxh6 (and now the menace in f2 avoids the Rxe6 trick) 3.Bxe6!! and now
it's all clear ... after 3...Kf8 4.Bxh6 Ke7 5.Bc8 white is clearly winning.

My suposition is that He stopped thinking after 1...Bxg3 or after
2...gxh6 and did not pay attention to this 3.Bxe6.

Henri, ... did you see until this point in your own analysis?

And I agree with Henri, it's a very great book (a classic).

AT

  #9   Report Post  
Old September 2nd 04, 10:33 PM
Antonio Torrecillas
 
Posts: n/a
Default

En/na Henri H. Arsenault ha escrit:

Kotov's "Think like a grandmaster!" is a great book with a lot of good
advice, so it is amusing that I found the very first diagram
explanation to be cooked not once, but twice: not only did Kotov miss
the winning move, but the move he gives as correct leaves White with
an inferior position!
(...)
Kotov considers 1. N-g4 Q-h5 2. NxP+ K-f8 and after exchanging Queens,
White wins. But he overlooked the response by Black 1...Qxd4!! 2.
Ng4xh6+ Kg8-f8 =/+ that leaves Black with a slight advantage.
Henri


And the second question is ...
what was the saving resource Kotov missed in his winning line?

Maybe 1.Ng4 Qxd4 2.Nxh6 Kf8! and black need to see some "only moves" in
a row like:

3.Rxg6 fxg6 (only move) 4.Qxg6 Qf6! (only move) 5.Qh7 Rd2! (only move)
6.Qg8 Ke7 and now:
- a mistake is 7.Rxe6? Kd7!! (only move) winning black
- 7.Nf5! Qxf5 8.Rxe6 Qxe6 (only move) 9.Qe6 Kd8 (only move) 10.Qg8 Kc7!
(only move) and white must accept draw by continuum.

you can see, ... not a very easy one!!
(and maybe I missed something)

AT

  #10   Report Post  
Old September 3rd 04, 03:18 AM
Henri H. Arsenault
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:18:54 +0200, Antonio Torrecillas
wrote:



Henri, ... did you see until this point in your own analysis?

I am not sure, because a day later it is unclear in my mind what was
my analysis and what was Fritz's. But I certainly did not analyze all
the variations right to the end. On the other hand, what prompted me
to check it with Fritz was that I was unable to find a refutation to
1. Nxf7, so I must have at least analyzed the move a couple of plies
deep.

As for the Qxd4 refutation to 1.Ng4, tht is all Fritz; I did not try
to analyze all the otehr variations than 1.Nxf7 since it looked to me
like that move was winning (as it was).

At this point in my chess, I am not generally able to analyze a
multi-branched tree all the way down - if I could, I would be a
master...

Henri
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017