Scottrf, it's much better than giving up a pawn for nothing. 9...Qc7 is the best move in that position.
It can't really be argued.
1. e4 vs 1. d4
Sort:
You were saying Qa4 was the bad move for white...theory and a very successful line.
And that Qc7 would give black a nice position; winning 18% and losing 55% which is obviously a fantastic return.
Scottrf wrote:
You were saying Qa4 was the bad move for white...theory and a very successful line.
And that Qc7 would give black a nice position; winning 18% and losing 55% which is obviously a fantastic return.
You are focusing way too much on ratings and statistics. In that position 9...Qc7 saves the pawn. It's the only good move.
You seem to think that GM's are flawless. They are human. Try to remember that.
Yereslov wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
You were saying Qa4 was the bad move for white...theory and a very successful line.
And that Qc7 would give black a nice position; winning 18% and losing 55% which is obviously a fantastic return.
You are focusing way too much on ratings and statistics. In that position 9...Qc7 saves the pawn. It's the only good move.
I didn't say it wasn't, but the results suggest it doesn't give black a nice position either.
I didn't say they were flawless but I do think that if a good number of GMs are playing 9...b5 giving up the pawn 'for nothing', that perhaps they see something the amazing Yereslov doesn't.
No, I just did a quick analysis with Houdini 1.5.
The early b pawn push cost black a pawn.
I don't see how you have to be a GM to notice a hanging pawn.
It's not GM knowledge.
You know this could go on forever. Yereslov never yields: not to evidence & not to logic.
It's amusing that you think they didn't notice that they were hanging a pawn.
I hope your arrogance isn't genuine or you will never improve, nor will you by getting your engine to tell you the answers.
Hanging pieces is an art....
Once in an interview, Mikhail Tal was asked why he left so many pieces hanging at once... his reply " my opponent can only take them one at a time"...
Vasily Invachuk was second to Kasparov in the 90's and was the one to end his record-breaking winning streak at Linares 1991.
You keep forgetting that players do make mistakes. Even GM's are prone to major blunders.
It's not planned everytime. Ivanchuk had a won position here, yet he succumbed to his nerves and lost due to this.
nameno1had wrote:
Hanging pieces is an art....
Once in an interview, Mikhail Tal was asked why he left so many pieces hanging at once... his reply " my opponent can only take them one at a time"...
It's too bad that Tal's sacrifices would never work in modern GM tournament.
They were never very effective against Fischer.
Yereslov wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
Hanging pieces is an art....
Once in an interview, Mikhail Tal was asked why he left so many pieces hanging at once... his reply " my opponent can only take them one at a time"...
It's too bad that Tal's sacrifices would never work in modern GM tournament.
They were never very effective against Fischer.
Remember I said that hanging pieces is an art...imagine if Tal had the time to perfect his art ? It is sad that he left us so soon.
Though some of Tal's moves were unsound from a theory stand point, it is irrelevant. He was never required to live up to the standard of the theory, only to beat his opponents. If your opponent can't play what he has memorized and can't calculate as well as you, it is too your advantage to play this style. That is why Tal did. Besides, draws are boring.
Yereslov wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
...
It's too bad that Tal's sacrifices would never work in modern GM tournament.
They were never very effective against Fischer.
This is the dumbest thing I've read here in a while. To sacrifice effectively, your opponent has to let himself be open to it. Fischer was probably onto the tactical shots that were coming his way and had a tendency to drive the games more than drift through positions awaiting his opponent's plans. Against the not-too-careful, Tal worked his magic in a way that you never will.
DrSpudnik wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
...
It's too bad that Tal's sacrifices would never work in modern GM tournament.
They were never very effective against Fischer.
This is the dumbest thing I've read here in a while. To sacrifice effectively, your opponent has to let himself be open to it. Fischer was probably onto the tactical shots that were coming his way and had a tendency to drive the games more than drift through positions awaiting his opponent's plans. Against the not-too-careful, Tal worked his magic in a way that you never will.
@ DrSpudnik
I considered debating that with Yereslov, but I honestly can't say how adept modern GM's would be against Tal's type of moves. I guess maybe Yereslov is either forgetting or has never known the type of onslaught Tal unleashed in setting records that have never been broken and maybe never will be.
I still can't figure out why some people insist that the theory dictates chess play, when it is the players that actually determine the outcome. I guess some people are oblivious.
100% agreement nameno1had. 
It took Yereslov to bring that about!
lol....
Believe it or not, I am able to find ways to appreciate people, even if they don't agree with me.
I have had a very controversial idea in my mind I have been sitting on lately. I might throw it out there for everyone to chew on...
It isn't that the basis of it hasn't been mauled over pretty well already, but I am prepared to go a bit further than perhaps some people would, even if they have.
nameno1had wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
...
It's too bad that Tal's sacrifices would never work in modern GM tournament.
They were never very effective against Fischer.
This is the dumbest thing I've read here in a while. To sacrifice effectively, your opponent has to let himself be open to it. Fischer was probably onto the tactical shots that were coming his way and had a tendency to drive the games more than drift through positions awaiting his opponent's plans. Against the not-too-careful, Tal worked his magic in a way that you never will.
@ DrSpudnik
I considered debating that with Yereslov, but I honestly can't say how adept modern GM's would be against Tal's type of moves. I guess maybe Yereslov is either forgetting or has never known the type of onslaught Tal unleashed in setting records that have never been broken and maybe never will be.
I still can't figure out why some people insist that the theory dictates chess play, when it is the players that actually determine the outcome. I guess some people are oblivious.
Modern analysis has shown that most of Tal's sacrifices either led to a loss or a draw.
It's not my opinion. It's a fact.
Of course I can play random sacrifices also, but against super GM's these are just nonsensical moves.
Such a nice position white wins 55% of games in the line on chessgames and loses 21%.