"With a player like Carlsen you can see that he is less influenced by computers than other players who are less successful. I think it is one of the advantages of our generation – one of the reasons our generation is still doing well – is that we learnt to play on a good basis, and then learnt how to use computers in our favour, while a lot of young players only know how to use computers and don't have a good basis. Instead of thinking they are used to press a button and see what the computer says. So like any invention it can be used in a good or a bad way. One of the secrets of success now-a-days it to use computers in your favour and not let computers rule your thinking ability."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8065
Originally posted by PacifiqueI saw Carlsen's interview. He doesn't like to prepare with engine
"With a player like Carlsen you can see that he is less influenced by computers than other players who are less successful. I think it is one of the advantages of our generation – one of the reasons our generation is still doing well – is that we learnt to play on a good basis, and then learnt how to use computers in our favour, while a lot of young player ...[text shortened]... computers rule your thinking ability."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8065
Good post Pacifique. 🙂
This Gelfand chappie has obviously been reading this forum.
Alas if Gelfand losses the World Title Match the drones will claim it was
because he never used the computer to do his thinking. 🙁
That position I posted in the Skulls thread.
Rybka, Deep Blue, Fritz would never come up with the idea that White had.
Never.
It gives away three pieces and is totally unsound.
Yet it worked! soley because he was playing a human.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Such a tricks may work vs 1700 player, but it will probably fail vs stronger opponents as Qxg6 idea is hardly rocket science.
Good post Pacifique. 🙂
This Gelfand chappie has obviously been reading this forum.
Alas if Gelfand losses the World Title Match the drones will claim it was
because he never used the computer to do his thinking. 🙁
That position I posted in the Skulls thread.
[fen] r3r1k1/1b3p2/p2p2pp/2p1q3/PpP5/1P1Q2PP/2B3PK/2R2N2 w - - 0 1[/fen]
Rybka, D ...[text shortened]... away three pieces and is totally unsound.
Yet it worked! soley because he was playing a human.
Hi P.
It was not the Qxg6+ leading to perpetual. That was easy to see once you see it.
It was conceivng the idea in the first place.
"OK I'm lost, first I'll give him my Knight, then my Rook, then sac the Bishop..."
I've relied on a few bad move in my time (when I'm setting a trap.)
But to come up with a three piece sac one move after the other banking
on him taking the last piece......I'm learning things everyday. 🙂
Brilliant!
Originally posted by greenpawn34Do you really think it was so hard to find adequate defense vs perpetual check threat? Don`t tell me you would fall into this trap.
Hi P.
It was not the Qxg6+ leading to perpetual. That was easy to see once you see it.
It was conceivng the idea in the first place.
"OK I'm lost, first I'll give him my Knight, then my Rook, then sac the Bishop..."
I've relied on a few bad move in my time (when I'm setting a trap.)
But to come up with a three piece sac one move after the ot ...[text shortened]... banking
on him taking the last piece......I'm learning things everyday. 🙂
Brilliant!
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20024
Originally posted by PacifiqueThere is a least a small chance that your opponent falls into it. Always more chance than resigning. I like it, but I don't think many would have actually played it, or even start thinking about it. How many silly attempts like this didn't work? Also, it feels like stealing the game.
Do you really think it was so hard to find adequate defense vs perpetual check threat? Don`t tell me you would fall into this trap.
Hi P.
I am not making my point clear.
I've said all along the whole thing is unsound.
I would not fall for the perpetual after Bxg6, but I doubt if I would have come
up with the idea of saccing a Knight and Rook gambling that the player will
take the Bishop.
As Black I would most likely have gone this way.
From the actual game.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by greenpawn34No, that is the simple thing to see.
It was not the Qxg6+ leading to perpetual. That was easy to see once you see it.
It was conceivng the idea in the first place.
"OK I'm lost, first I'll give him my Knight, then my Rook, then sac the Bishop..."
You're lost. The only thing that could possibly work is desperation. Well, then: go crazy. Even at my level that is obvious. At Carlsen's level, it would never work.
(By the way, anyone who thinks Gelfand will lose to Anand because he doesn't use computers and Anand has a tasp implanted is a nutcase. Boris may use computers less than the current generation, but Vishy is hardly Mr. Hardcore himself.)
Richard
Originally posted by greenpawn34Also after Bxg6 Black may play Qg5 for example.
Hi P.
I am not making my point clear.
I've said all along the whole thing is unsound.
I would not fall for the perpetual after Bxg6, but I doubt if I would have come
up with the idea of saccing a Knight and Rook gambling that the player will
take the Bishop.
As Black I would most likely have gone this way.
[pgn]
[FEN "r3r1k1/1b3p2/p2p2pp ...[text shortened]... econd glance and seeing that the Queen on c1 held h6 thought there was no perpetual.}[/pgn]