Home 
Search 
Today's Posts 
#1




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 Ng4. 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+ Kg8f8 3. h2xg3 + and White is a piece ahead with a strong attack) (Ng6f4 2. Bb2xf4 Qf6xf4 3. Qh5g6 and Black will have to give up the Queen to avoid checkmate) 2. Bb3xe6 wins the queen Kotov's analysis of 1. Ng4? is overlooks a saving move by Black. Kotov considers 1. Ng4 Qh5 2. NxP+ Kf8 and after exchanging Queens, White wins. But he overlooked the response by Black 1...Qxd4!! 2. Ng4xh6+ Kg8f8 =/+ 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 quasipatzer 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




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




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 Ng4 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




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 Ng4. 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+ Kg8f8 3. h2xg3 + and White is a piece ahead with a strong attack) (Ng6f4 2. Bb2xf4 Qf6xf4 3. Qh5g6 and Black will have to give up the Queen to avoid checkmate) 2. Bb3xe6 wins the queen Kotov's analysis of 1. Ng4? is overlooks a saving move by Black. Kotov considers 1. Ng4 Qh5 2. NxP+ Kf8 and after exchanging Queens, White wins. But he overlooked the response by Black 1...Qxd4!! 2. Ng4xh6+ Kg8f8 =/+ 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 quasipatzer 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




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 
#7




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




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 Ng4. 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+ Kg8f8 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




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. Ng4 Qh5 2. NxP+ Kf8 and after exchanging Queens, White wins. But he overlooked the response by Black 1...Qxd4!! 2. Ng4xh6+ Kg8f8 =/+ 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




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 multibranched tree all the way down  if I could, I would be a master... Henri 