One last thing Phil---about the scientific nonsense, my articles in science have been good enough to make the front cover of Infinite Energy Magazine twice. Just check out the article on line, "Beyond Plate Tectonics: 'Plate' Dynamics". Also check out the abstract, "The Eclipse Data from 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science".
Supranormal Acitivity in Chess
Sort:
Thanks for the constructive post. The Sicilian Dragon thing refers to a thread by someone who took a normal line in the Dragon and took it as a refutation. Thank you for explaining the thing about Gov. Sloughter. Some of your claims i still don't believe. I am sorry if it seemed like a rant, but it seemed as if most of your posts repeated the same thing. I still don't believe i will try any of your openings,though.
This is hardly a refutation of the Dragon Sicilian, but it does indicate that there is scope for original play in auxilliary positions. I don't when the N is here.
The Dragon Sicilian is a dynamic opening for Black and clearly any "refutation" is going to look a lot like +/= by move 20. Here, the concept of 7.f4 seems reasonable but Fritz 10 had no trouble equalizing at 120'40, 60'20, '30.
Post members have questioned the use of the phrase "supranormal". Perhaps some one can call it something else. Here, for example, I reverse 500 years of theory and play in the Fried Liver with just a single move. White is simply winning in the main line. This is, perhaps, the most convincing example of a communal blind spot I have ever seen.
Here are the starting moves: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5.5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7! (The Lolli Variation is incomparably weaker than this because of 6.d4? Nxd4!. Dan Heisman in a recent issue of Chess Life showed that 7.c3 does not win a piece) 6...Kxf7 7.Qf3ch Ke6 (In view of what happens now, relatively best for White is to give back the piece with 7...Ke8 8.Qxd5 Qxd5 9.Bxd5 Nb4 10.Bb3 Bf5 11.d3 e4 12.a3 +/-) 8.Nc3 Nb4
9.Bb3!! N (As I define development, White just gained a tempo over 9.a3, c2 is no longer hanging, and the threat of 12.a3 is impossible to meet successfully.) 9...c6 (forced) 10.a3 Na6 (To show you just how bad Black's position is here, Fritz 10 seriously considered Nxc2ch just giving back the piece with a clearly worse position) 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.d4 exd4 (e4? 13.Qxe4ch! +-) 13.Bf4 (Only now did I start to play Fritz 10 at 120'40 because I had reached this position in analysis; Fritz did not deviate from the analysis. All of White's next moves are easy to find) 13...Qa5ch 14.c3 Qb5 15.Qe4ch Kd7 16.Bxd5 Nc5 17.Qxd4 Ne6 18.Qd2 Ke8 19.O-O-O Be7 20.Rhe1 Qa6 21.Bxe6 Bxe6 22.Qe3 Rd8 23.Qxe6 Rxd1ch 24.Kxd1 Qxe6 25.Rxe6 Kf7 27.Re4 & Here I resigned for Fritz because Black's position two pawns
down in a simple endgame is dead lost.
Again as in your other thread I gave 12...Be7 as forced and an example line.
I'll do some research and cover your concerns in the Fried Liver Thread. In this game Fritz 10 made a gross tactical error in the middlegame i.e. it failed to appreciate long-term positional compensation. White was clearly better then had to fight for the draw after 25.Qxb6ch when the simple 25.c7 is +/-.
For the first time ever, I beat Fritz 10 at blitz. In the following game against Fritz 12, White should be able to hold this ending. It is the first game I played against Fritz 12 at 120'40 30'. In one blitz game we were about equal until I hung a pawn; then three moves later Fritz announced mate in 11!! in a matter of a few seconds. Perhaps someone can find the novelty here.
sloughterchess wrote:
For the first time ever, I beat Fritz 10 at blitz. In the following game against Fritz 12, White should be able to hold this ending. It is the first game I played against Fritz 12 at 120'40 30'. In one blitz game we were about equal until I hung a pawn; then three moves later Fritz announced mate in 11!! in a matter of a few seconds. Perhaps someone can find the novelty here.
Ah, the infamous, "I tell you, I was winning until I was losing!" explanation.
So during play you cheat by looking at the evaluation? Do you also look at the lines? Just curious.
For training purposes, I cover both the evaluation and the lines. In this game, I was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Fritz 12 does not play certain openings well. What I should point out is that Fritz plays very "human" strategy. Once when I gained ground in a blitz game (Fritz went from favoring itself to a slight advantage for me, and then a big advantage to me), Fritz sacrificed a piece for inadequate compensation (a very "human" choice i.e. when you're busted---complicate!), but due to the random nature of the position and the fast time limit, I soon got lost in the complications. Every other time Fritz has played a sacrificial combination, it always leads to a completely winning position in a few moves. This was the first time when it sacrificed a piece, I wasn't immediately busted.
Your criticism is valid; any other games will be presented without sight of either evaluation or moves.
There isn't an expert that could lose this ending; unfortunately, I have Class D endgame skills. This was played without sight of either evaluation or moves.
Sloughterchess-Fritz 12
Would a human World Champion allow a 1600 player to get away with this?
Another near miss.
The Wilkes-Barre/Traxler as a winning try is a bust. Here White has the better side of equality the entire game and Black is forced into a difficult ending with no winning chances. A GM would win with White consistently; I made some second best moves and had to settle for a draw.
What is wrong with 17...Raf8 as it looks clearly superior to 17...Kf7?
Although I have never played a King's Indian Defense in a tournament level game, the following King pawn opening transposed into the KID. Since it was played at a time limit of Game/10, Fritz 12 presumably plays about at World Champion Level. I took less than 90 seconds for the entire game; Fritz took over 6 minutes.
GM Joel Benjamin once
asked in CHESS LIFE, when was the last time you saw a GM lose on the Black side of an Evans Gambit? Two variations of the Evans Gambit I've played against Fritz 12 led to advantage White. The next time Fritz tries this variation on me, I'll try to win the position, because obviously, White has a great game. It is important to recognize just how powerful this opening can be when Black scarfs up just one too many pawns---even when Black is a World Class computer with phenomenal defensive abilities.
Conquistador wrote:
What is wrong with 17...Raf8 as it looks clearly superior to 17...Kf7?
Please look at post 268-269.
To Phil_A_$ Isn't it instructive that some people make interesting additions to this post while others just rant---like you? As for the "grammatical nonsense" (You use lower case for I, i. Presumably you are very humble?) My screen name is after Governor Sloughter (Not Slaughter) a corrupt Governor of New York in the 1600's who was driven out of office and settled in Schoharie County where I live. His followers came to known as "Sloughters" originally a source of derision, now a source of pride.
I haven't looked in detail at the Sicilian Dragon. Refute it? Sounds like a challenge to me. I let you know what I find.
Chess.com members should be aware that I go to great effort to improve the quality of the analysis posted here. In the past month I have retained the services of GM Lev Alburt, IM Danny Kopec, FM Rudy Blumenfeld and Senior Life Master Russell Potter; the results of their review and comment of an article I wrote will be published on this site within the month.