Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 02:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

As regular rgc readers are well aware, and as can be seen he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...fb4ed74f3767c#

some weeks ago Ray Lopez posted here a game of his which he proclaimed
to be a flawless, master-level game. In his usual brash, insolent
manner, he challenged rgc readers to analyze the game and see if any
mistake, by either player, could be found. This challenge was largely
ignored, not only because rgc readers had become tired of Lopez’s
habitual insolence, but also because few if any Lopez games posted
here had proven to worth the time it took to play through them, and it
was generally felt this one was no different.
Still, Lopez persisted, demanding in ever more provocative terms
that we analyze the game. Furthermore, he promised that if any
significant errors did exist, he would no longer post on these
newsgroups.
While Lopez hardly inspires trust that he will keep that promise,
the game does offer yet another opportunity to deflate his pretensions
and refute his boastful claims. So, with the assistance of computer
engines Rybka 3.1 UCI and Fritz8, I have been analyzing the game and
will be presenting the results here. Lopez has solemnly sworn that if
even one move by either player is flawed, is not master level, he will
“quit posting here forever.” While a ban cannot be enforced, I will
hold him to that promise, and it will be to his great discredit should
he break it.

The terms for judging whether a move qualified as “master level”
were worked out and agreed to by Lopez and myself he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...a9cc0ab0544e7#

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...3a7063946ac5f0

In brief they a

(A) The move must be among the top two choices of the Rybka analysis
engine.
(B) Even if the move is a #2 choice, it is not master level if it
lets a win slip to a loss or draw, or lets a draw slip to a loss, or
changes the position from one significantly favoring White to one
significantly favoring Black (or vice versa).
(C) A move considered good by Rybka may still be considered below
master level if it is positionally bad according to established chess
principles. On this point Lopez has agreed to defer to my judgement.

I have presented all this here to make sure the terms of the
challenge are clear to everyone. Later today I will begin posting
analysis of the game.
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 04:10 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 4:52*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* The terms for judging whether a move qualified as “master level”
were worked out and agreed to by Lopez and myself he

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...wse_thread/thr...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...wse_thread/thr...

* In brief they a

* (A) The move must be among the top two choices of the Rybka analysis
engine.
* (B) Even if the move is a #2 choice, it is not master level if it
lets a win slip to a loss or draw, or lets a draw slip to a loss, or
changes the position from one significantly favoring White to one
significantly favoring Black (or vice versa).
* (C) A move considered good by Rybka may still be considered below
master level if it is positionally bad according to established chess
principles. On this point Lopez has agreed to defer to my judgement.

* I have presented all this here to make sure the terms of the
challenge are clear to everyone. Later today I will begin posting
analysis of the game.



TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. I will abide by it--
I assure you. You are in for a big surprise. I have gone over these
games with my chess engine, and yes, they really ARE master games. I
might even go so far as to say, in an insouciance manner, they may
even be grandmaster games, though I'm not prepared to go that far and
in any rate that will not affect our bet any.

And yes, if you can show they are not master level games, I will abide
by the bet and even stop posting here, if you want.

RL
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 04:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 116
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On 12/07/10 14:52, Taylor Kingston wrote:
[...] Lopez has solemnly sworn that if
even one move by either player is flawed, is not master level, he will
“quit posting here forever.”


As the game was won by Ray, despite his admission that he missed
one quicker win, it is manifest that Black must have played at least one
move that breaches your term B [a second-best move that changes the
theoretical outcome from draw to loss], unless it already breaches A.
No further analysis needed, unless a player is asking for help from
stronger players in determining *which* of move caused the loss.

[...]
The terms for judging whether a move qualified as “master level”
were worked out and agreed to by Lopez and myself he

[...]
In brief they a
(A) The move must be among the top two choices of the Rybka analysis
engine.


Even if this is agreeable to Ray, it is pretty daft. I don't
know which two initial moves Rybka prefers, but it's not reasonable to
say that two of 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 are not master level, as
they have all been played regularly by strong GMs even in the most
serious competitions and after due preparation. Similarly, after 1 e4,
which of 1 ... e5, 1 ... e6, 1 ... c5 and 1 ... c6 [all played in WC
matches] are not master level? OK, that's in the opening, and perhaps
comes under special rules, but even in the middle-game and ending, it
is quite common for there to be many more-or-less equally playable
moves. Would it not be more sensible to say that the move must be
among those rated by Rybka within [say] 0.2 [20 centipawns] of its
top choice? That will still give you plenty of scope to find moves
that are clearly not master level.

Of course, it would be even more sensible to take MH's advice
and NFTT.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
  #4   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 04:40 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 11:10*am, raylopez99 wrote:
On Jul 12, 4:52*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:





* The terms for judging whether a move qualified as “master level”
were worked out and agreed to by Lopez and myself he


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...wse_thread/thr...


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...wse_thread/thr...


* In brief they a


* (A) The move must be among the top two choices of the Rybka analysis
engine.
* (B) Even if the move is a #2 choice, it is not master level if it
lets a win slip to a loss or draw, or lets a draw slip to a loss, or
changes the position from one significantly favoring White to one
significantly favoring Black (or vice versa).
* (C) A move considered good by Rybka may still be considered below
master level if it is positionally bad according to established chess
principles. On this point Lopez has agreed to defer to my judgement.


* I have presented all this here to make sure the terms of the
challenge are clear to everyone. Later today I will begin posting
analysis of the game.


TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. *I will abide by it--
I assure you. *You are in for a big surprise.


Sorry, Ray, but I'm not going to be at all surprised. I've known for
weeks, ever since you posted the game, that it is full of bad moves.
I'm just getting all the sitting ducks in a row before I shoot them
here publicly.

*I have gone over these
games with my chess engine, and yes, they really ARE master games. *I
might even go so far as to say, in an insouciance manner, they may
even be grandmaster games, though I'm not prepared to go that far and
in any rate that will not affect our bet any.

And yes, if you can show they are not master level games, I will abide
by the bet and even stop posting here, if you want.


That is the one thing that would surprise me.
  #5   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 05:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 618
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
wrote:

On Jul 12, 11:10*am, raylopez99 wrote:


TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. *I will abide by it--
I assure you. *You are in for a big surprise.



Is the surprise that you've found some GM game which you are passing
off as your own ?

This wouldn't prove much -- major league ball players make errors too.

GM games contain a surprising number of tactical errors -- they
acknowledge this. The presence or lack of presence of Rybka tactical
improvements doesn't serve to enable a bunch of class players to
identify true GM games.

I will say "your" 29th move, allowing capture of a rook with check,
seems rather sophisticated for a 1540 player in a blitz game. I say
"sophisticated" even though Rybka finds better in the position.




  #6   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 05:23 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 12:01*pm, MikeMurray wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston

wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:10*am, raylopez99 wrote:
TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. *I will abide by it--
I assure you. *You are in for a big surprise.


Is the surprise that you've found some GM game which you are passing
off as your own ? *


Mike, I've done a search on the ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005, and
there is no matching game after Black's 12th move. There are 24 games
that match through White's 12th, ranging from Aronin-Larsen, Moscow
1959, to Lujan-Needleman, Mar del Plata Open 2004, but once Black
played 12...Rb8, no match. That, plus the fact that both sides played
poorly, makes me doubt that Ray has copied any GM game here.
  #7   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 05:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 618
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
wrote:

On Jul 12, 12:01*pm, MikeMurray wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston

wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:10*am, raylopez99 wrote:
TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. *I will abide by it--
I assure you. *You are in for a big surprise.


Is the surprise that you've found some GM game which you are passing
off as your own ? *


Mike, I've done a search on the ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005, and
there is no matching game after Black's 12th move. There are 24 games
that match through White's 12th, ranging from Aronin-Larsen, Moscow
1959, to Lujan-Needleman, Mar del Plata Open 2004, but once Black
played 12...Rb8, no match. That, plus the fact that both sides played
poorly, makes me doubt that Ray has copied any GM game here.


These databases wouldn't reflect many GM blitz games, would they ?
  #8   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 05:40 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game


Lopez,Ray (1540) - Pappas (1575)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qc7 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 a6 7.0–0 Nf6
8.Kh1 b5 9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.f4 b4?!

Through White’s 10th move the game can be considered “book,” though
this particular variation of the Taimanov Sicilian is not well
regarded by theoreticians, nor has it had much practical success.
ChessBase shows it occurring in 54 games from 1955 thru 2004, with
Black scoring only +12 -31 =11, 32%.
The text, in my opinion, must be considered Black’s first mistake.
It is positionally loosening, and wastes time when Black is already
behind in development. Better was 10...Bb7, and if 11.e5 Rd8 12.Qe1
Nd5 13.Nxd5 cxd5 as in Ye Jiangchuan - J. Polgar, Biel Interzonal 1993
(½–½, 50).

In Rybka’s opinion, 10…b4?! is about 10th-best, behind 10...Bb7,
Be7, Bc5, Rb8, Bb4, Nd7, h5, Bd7, and h6.

The “?!” is not just my opinion, by the way. GM Zoltan Ribli,
annotating three games on CB (Volotkin-Crisan, Portoroz 2001 (1-0,
28); Ricardo-Sunye Neto, Buenos Aires 1994 (1-0, 34); Short-
Ljubojevic, Linares 1995 (1-0, 31)), gives the same punctuation. Ribli
is considered one of the top 30 or 40 players of all time. Practical
results support his conclusion: of the 24 games in this line on CB,
White has scored +15 -7 =2, 67%.

11.e5 bxc3?

While Rybka does not make much of this, it has to be faulted as
positionally unspeakable. It leads to a position in which Black has
three isolated pawns, four pawn islands to White’s two, his king has
no safe place to castle, and he has great difficulty coordinating his
pieces, especially in connecting his rooks. Necessary was 11...Nd5.

12.exf6 Rb8

Finally leaving the books altogether, and in a manner not to be
recommended. Rybka rates this about the 8th-best option at about
+1.20, well behind 12...gxf6 (+0.54).

13.bxc3

A master would prefer 13.Qd4 cxb2 14.Bxb2 Rg8 15.Rab1 when White's
position is much superior. Of course, Black has played so badly that
White stands better anyway. Rybka puts the text as 3rd-best (+0.85),
behind 13.Qd4 (+1.17) and 13.Qd3 (+0.92).

13...gxf6 14.f5

3rd-best (+0.56), behind 14.Qd4 (+0.85) and 14.Be3 (+0.60).

14…e5 15.Be3 h5

I have no comment on this particular move (Rybka’s #2 choice, after
15…Qa5), but this is a good point at which to show a diagram which
reveals in what a sorry state Black is in positionally and
developmentally, as I said would be a likely consequence of his 11th
move:

1rb1kb1r/2q2p2/p1p2p2/4pP1p/8/2P1B3/P1P1B1PP/R2Q1R1K w k h6 0 16

Could any chess master look at this and not see that Black is in a
miserable state, and has played in a decidedly unmasterful manner?

16.Bxh5

8th-best (+0.50), behind 16.Bc4 (+0.80), Qd3, Bf3, h3, Bd3, Qd2, and
a4.

16…c5

If Black wanted to play this, better to have done it the move
before. After 15...h5 16.Bxh5, the correct followup was 16...Qa5
17.Qe2 Qxc3 , though even then his chances were poor. Rybka puts the
text at 4th-best (+0.99), behind 16...Qa5 (+0.50), Rb2 and Bh6.

17.h3

3rd-best (+0.77), behind 17.Qg4 (+0.99) and Qe2 (+0.89).

17...Bb7 18.Qe2 Qa5?

This is not even in Rybka's top 10. It rates 18...Bd5 or …Be4 best
at about +0.88. The text is way down the list at about +1.45.

19.Bf3 Bxf3 20.Qxf3 Be7

3rd-best (+1.85), behind 20...Bd6 (+1.69) and Qc7 (+1.76).

21.Rab1 Rd8 22.c4

At best about 5th-best (+1.82), behind 22.Qc6+ (+4.60), Rb7 (+3.18),
Rfd1 (+2.05), and Qe4 (+1.84). Most masters would see that 22.Qc6+ Kf8
(22...Rd7?? 23.Rfd1+-) 23.Rb7, threatening 24.Rxe7 Kxe7 25.Bxc5+, wins
quickly.

22...Qxa2??

A dreadful blunder. 15th-best, at +5.76. Rybka prefers 22...Kf8
(+1.87) and 13 other moves over this.

23.Qc6+ Kf8 24.Bxc5 Bxc5

About 6th best at +13.60, though now Black's position is so ruined
it hardly matters; #1 is 24...Kg7 at +11.79.

25.Qxc5+

This routine, unthinking recapture is Rybka's #2, but a runner-up so
far behind as to make Alf Landon look like Alexander the Great. After
letting it run a /long/ time, Rybka rates this move at about +3.50,
Fritz8 only at about +1.40. More immediately decisive was 25.Qxf6,
which Rybka evaluates at about +29.00 if Black replies 25...Qxb1;
anything else leads to mate in 14 at most. Fritz8 concurs.

25...Kg7 26.Rb3 Rh5 27.Rg3+ Kh7 28.Qe7 Qxc4 29.Qxf6 Rg8 30.Rff3 Qh4??

Allows mate in 3, and is not even in Rybka's top 20. Relatively best
was 30...Rh6, at about +3.55.

31.Qxf7+ 1–0

Counting up the mistakes as defined in the agreed terms, we have 14:
Black’s moves 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 30; White’s moves
13, 14, 16, 17, and 22. Even being generous, and discounting moves
that came in third in Rybka’s evaluation takes away only four moves (B
20; W 13, 14, 17). It is also evident, especially from looking at
White’s 22nd and 25th moves, that he had relatively few mistakes only
because Black made his task so easy, rather than because of any great
skill on White’s part.
Even if Rybka or I am wrong about some of these moves, there is
still plenty to refute Lopez, who has repeatedly boasted that there
was not even one mistake by either side in this game. By any
reasonable standard, there are way more than one.

Therefore, I ask that Ray Lopez keep his promise, effective
immediately. He is no longer to post on any rec.games.chess newsgroup,
in particular rec.games.chess.misc and rec.games.chess.analysis. This
applies not only to posts as “Ray Lopez,” which he has admitted is not
his real name anyway, but under any other screen name or pseudonym
(e.g. “Your Smrat”). Nor is he to have any other people post his words
under their names (and yes, Ray, we would quickly recognize your
style).

We shall see if he has any honor at all.
  #9   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 08:31 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 7:01*pm, MikeMurray wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston

wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:10*am, raylopez99 wrote:
TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. *I will abide by it--
I assure you. *You are in for a big surprise.


Is the surprise that you've found some GM game which you are passing
off as your own ? *


My my my. You are a clever boy. Too bad TK has already bit...and I
will proceed to shred him in my next post.


This wouldn't prove much -- major league ball players make errors too.


Oh yes it does prove much MM. Because TK has said my blitz games are
not worthy of being posted...so if a GM's blitz game is also not
worthy, then what blitz game is worthy?


GM games contain a surprising number of tactical errors -- they
acknowledge this. *The presence or lack of presence of Rybka tactical
improvements doesn't serve to enable a bunch of class players to
identify true GM games.


Perhaps. So you are saying that even a Class A or B player can
produce a grandmaster quality game? I agree, if that's what you're
saying. In fact, I've been saying all along that I sometimes play
like Capablanca or Tal.


I will say "your" 29th move, allowing capture of a rook with check,
seems rather sophisticated for a 1540 player in a blitz game. *I say
"sophisticated" even though Rybka finds better in the position.


My 29th move--or rather, White's 29th move--is Qxf6, which, as you
say, I never would have made; instead, I would have played Rff3, which
in fact Fritz says is the best move. So you consider a suboptimal move
"sophisticated"? Anyway, it's all moot. You did nail the crux of the
problem, which is that White is playing at the master level--indeed,
the grandmaster level, as my next post will show.

Congratulations--you of all people have a cunning brain. You, not TK,
would make a good lawyer.

Now onto my reply to TK...he he he...this is going to be good.

RL
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 08:38 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 7:32*pm, MikeMurray wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston





wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:01*pm, MikeMurray wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston


wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:10*am, raylopez99 wrote:
TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. *I will abide by it--
I assure you. *You are in for a big surprise.


Is the surprise that you've found some GM game which you are passing
off as your own ? *


*Mike, I've done a search on the ChessBase MegaDatabase 2005, and
there is no matching game after Black's 12th move. There are 24 games
that match through White's 12th, ranging from Aronin-Larsen, Moscow
1959, to Lujan-Needleman, Mar del Plata Open 2004, but once Black
played 12...Rb8, no match. That, plus the fact that both sides played
poorly, makes me doubt that Ray has copied any GM game here.


These databases wouldn't reflect many GM blitz games, would they ?


Would they, TK?

TK, you and Andy the mathematician remind me of the chess playing
villain in Ian Flemming's "From Russia With Love", Kronstein was it?,
who was a paragon of rationality except for the fact he forgot the
world is not rational. And he was killed, despite having a very
rational reason not to be killed (and it came as quite a shock when he
was stabbed with a poison pen by the arch villain).

Are you ready to be stabbed by my poison pen TK? Because I assure
you, I have an ironclad reason why I win this bet...and I'm preparing
my missive now...he he he. This is going to be good.

RL
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pls analyze this game of Beginner Level Sanny rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 23 September 14th 08 11:22 AM
GetClub (Beginner) played Rybka till end Game. [51 Moves] Sanny rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 16 February 26th 08 04:41 PM
Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang? [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 66 April 4th 07 02:14 PM
Interview with CJA Award Winning Historian in The Chess Journalist The Historian rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 215 November 16th 06 08:34 PM
Chess game improved further with double pawns Sanny rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 16 June 24th 06 09:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 AM.

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