Let's make it happen!
Wolff Morrow's Opening Analysis
Sort:
sisu Really your false accusations that todays ICCF players are cheating should be reported to Chess.com
pfren wrote:
Please, do not even think mr. blumzovich is trolling. He is able to generate threads with loads of quality analysis in them, like this one:
Don't take me so lightly. After all, I too am a 1700-player with an engine.
ponz111 wrote:
sisu Really your false accusations that todays ICCF players are cheating should be reported to Chess.com
No they shouldn't - why should chess.com care? They're not the ICCF.
Topalov accused Kramnik of cheating in a FIDE sponsored match. You think chess.com wouldn't welcome Topalov with open arms if he want to contribute on this site?
Krestez wrote:
a3 is a good move, tipically played in these kinds of Sicilian positions, obviously to prevent an annoying b4 advance by black.
An assertion supported by neither master practice nor the strongest engines in the position originally referred to. It is however supported by a 1700-player with an engine, and now you.
Well played.
-waller- wrote:
sisu wrote:
Haha, you cannot change my mind on this one, I believe that it is cheating to use an engine in correspondence chess! I don't care what the rules say!
Allow me to state my opinion that you are one of the biggest idiots I think I have ever come across. You clearly have never tried computer-aided correspondence chess, and know nothing about it. Yet you still swagger around and give your stupid opinions about how easy and stupid it is. Arrogant.
@blumzovich - you still don't seem to understand that everybody on ICCF uses computers these days, and have done for years. Morrow used an engine for his games, his opponents used engines for their games.
I understand that perfectly. What I object to is the USCF featuring his crap-tastic analysis as though it comes from an actual authority like a grandmaster.
LoveYouSoMuch wrote:
lol thread. ensuing correspondence discussion is whatever, but on the op
8. a3?! (Not ! as given by Mr. Morrow)
10.. h6! (Black is fine (Mr. Morrow's opponent played 10...Nb6?!))
would you at least care to elaborate? at least he gave in some lines to back up his opinion on a3, and to claim that Nb6 is "dubious" and that h6 is much better (op is obviously implying this) with no analysis at all is just silly.
er, i mean, this is an obvious troll thread, so whatever :o
Did I hear "gentlemen, start your engines"? So be it. But in the meantime, as an appetizer:
Moves List:
| Next Move | # of Games | Last Played | Winnings percentage White / Draw / Black |
||||||||||||||||
| 8... Bb7 | 47 | 2013 |
|
||||||||||||||||
| 8... Nbd7 | 18 | 2013 |
|
||||||||||||||||
| 8... Bd7 | 0-1, Konarkowska Sokolov (2135) vs. Nutu Gajic(2335) | ||||||||||||||||||
| 8... Qc7 | 1-0, Iglesias Leon (2042) vs. Gisbert Caballe | ||||||||||||||||||
| 8... Be7 | 0-1, Fuchs (2210) vs. Duer (2400) | ||||||||||||||||||
-waller- wrote:
FFS, the guy you're talking about is the US Correspondence Chess Champion, he didn't just turn on an engine and take it for gospel, far from it. Otherwise anyone could just do centaur chess, even someone who doesn't know how the pieces move.
I'm a 1700-player with an engine too, so I probably could. There are USCF/OTB 1400/1500's playing on ICCF with ratings of 2300 FCOL.
Formyoffdays, humans will improve too.
It'll be sometime else called the future.
Humans' brains improve every generation, just like computers. But only time will tell who comes out on top in 100 years.
ponz111 wrote:
Everything I have seen he has stated he uses an engine. It is part of correspondence chess to use an engine now. I have seen many of his posts where he says he uses an engine.
He has in the past communicated to me via private message that he was beating all these masters on ICCF *without* using one. Use one if you like, its allowed, but don't be a blowhard and claim you didn't.
I don't THINK computers are allowed in Online Chess here, but in other places, I know they are allowed.
Stockfish is pretty much telling me the same thing it did yesterday, I'll post details later, but I pose the question: an attack on the wing is best countered by ??? Figure that out and you'll have figured out Black's best follow up after 10...h6!
I am not aided by an engine. I think if I won that way it would feel empty. How can anyone gain any satisfaction from having a computer win for you?
So right now the only 2 viable 11th moves for White after 10...h6 appear to be:
- 11. 0-0-0
- 11. Rg1
Both being met with 11...d5. But the process doesn't end there: then you let the engine chew on the position after entering 11. 0-0-0 and/or 11. Rg1. Oftentimes just that one ply makes a difference, but typically not terribly so when you're already at depth 24. Right now my Stockfish has White "up" by 0.04 after 11. 0-0-0, so now we can see what it thinks after entering that move....
11...Rc8 is emerging as a viable alternative to 11...d5, at depth 21 the former being -0.04, the latter 0.04. I can let the engine churn a while longer, but if this is all 8. a3?! gets you, then it gets ?! and not ! Both moves are eminently logical and presumably easy to find for Sicilian-players.
After letting Stockfish digest this for a while I'll switch over to 11. Rg1 and see if any revelations emerge.
pfren wrote:
blumzovich wrote:
An assertion supported by neither master practice nor the strongest engines in the position originally referred to. It is however supported by a 1700-player with an engine, and now you.
Well played.
You could add a few OTB and correspondence grandmasters who prefer 8.a3 to the mainline Topalov variation. I may, or may not agree with their choice, but the only truth for non-ignorants is that 8.a3 is a fairly respectable move, and certainly more "freestyle" than 8.Qd2 b4 9.Na4 Nbd7, which has been almost excaustively analysed.
Now you could deduct your ignorance, but I'm afraid this is the most difficult thing to do...
Maybe I deserve that but I guarantee that with an engine as Black I would have fine chances to get a draw on ICCF after 8. a3
11...Rc8 has "fallen" to +0.12 from -0.04 -- now I'll let the engine exclusively probe 11...d5 which has remained steady at 0.04. Then as far as the engine is concerned the sequence 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Nxd5 Bxd5 is practically forced -- analyzing this could well get to the root of the matter as far as 11. 0-0-0 (I haven't forgotten 11. Rg1). If the engine proves me wrong about 10...h6 so be it, and I will post the analysis. But in so doing, I will have done a far better job annotating than the current USCC Champion.
pfren wrote:
One has to be completely naive to run an engine in that position, since it has been played more than one hundred times (most recent case being Morozevich- Nakamura from the FIDE GP in Thessaloniki).
Factly, 11.0-0-0 d5 is a slight inaccuracy- Black usually plays 11...Rc8 first, which he can follow-up with ...d5 next move (say after 12.h4) and win something resembling half a tempo.
I'll have to look that up in that other DB you referred me to. But you think Mr. Morrow wasn't running an engine? Right now Stockfish has 3 or 4 White responses as dead even at best. Most interesting might be 14. Nf5 g6
pfren wrote:
blumzovich wrote:
Maybe I deserve that but I guarantee that with an engine as Black I would have fine chances to get a draw on ICCF after 8. a3
Try your luck then... what are you waiting for?
Chances are that against a non-woodpusher you will get a good kick in the butt, though...
Why would my chances be any worse than Mr Morrow's? His USCF/OTB ratings and mine are both in the 1700s. And I've also played in the US Correspondence Championship (qualifying round) *before* the prevalance of databases and engines.
Sigh ... seems like blumzovich thinks he is the first to have the belief that religious adherence to a good engine will be more than good enough against a decent centaur player. Why don't you go over to ICCF, play some decent players, and then maybe you'll find out how powerful your silicon idol is. There seems to be no point in anyone trying to have a conversation and argue otherwise when, regardless of the argument, all you come back with is "engines are always right, my engine gives this number".
It will not be all that long when White will decide NOT to open 1. e4 in ICCF Correspondence Chess! Why?
Because Black can respond 1. e4 e5!! and now 2. Nf3 Nf6 is a Petroff which can be drawn. Also the Kings Gambit can easily be equalized against.
So good bye Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano, Bishops Opening, 4 Knights,
Ponziani, Danish Gambit, Goring Gambit, Scotch Game,
Scotch Gambit
Also if you play
French Defense, Caro Khan, any Sicilian, Alekhine Defense etc you will not get to play these defenses as White will not open 1. e4
However, be of good cheer, White will still be able to open 1. d4 or 1. c4 or 1. Nf3 and maybe 1. g3