GMTonyKosten wrote on 07/15/07 at 11:38:18:


This is constantly happening in the university world, so i gave up studing to get points there. It is a dream of mankind that the one gets the credit who deserves itand earnd it. But maybe oneday the world and the chess world will change....

After reading this thread, even though it's a little off topic, I fully vote for Nataf to take over. Cmon Tony, he's French, you're kinda French! Should be easy, no!?

If we only could ask him to reveal what he had intended.
Has anything happened in this variation recently, or is the exchange sacrifice the way to play as black?

In my opinion this whole discourse has gotten extremely out of hand. The plagiarism issue is strictly between Tommy, Victor and Tony/the chesspub management and all this bantering and personal attacks in the forum merely serve to detract from the overally quality of discussion. While subscriber's satisfaction with Victor is certainly an issue for the forum, it can (and should) be discussed indepently of Tommy's grievance.

Teyko wrote on 07/15/07 at 23:18:41:


The sentiments expressed in that last paragraph are so true, as I can attest to from personal experience. Often the aggrieved person is villified and asked to forget about whatever the issue is and move on, funnily enough often time these same hypocrites, were they in the aggrieved parties shoes often sing a different tune. 

Sometime back there was a thread plugging Eddie Dearing's Dragon repertoire book soon after it came out and in fact it was getting rave reviews from just about everybody at the time save one reviewer, namely Sergei Tiviakov, who in effect flamed the book. Around about this time everybody was consoling Mr. Dearing and imploring him to stop harping and just ignore it, after all it was just one bad review among many excellent ones. Mr. Dearing however just could not get past it, and eventually wrote a long letter to New In Chess, which was published, in essence trying to justify and validate his work to Tiviakov, who incidentally remained unimpressed judging by his even more scathing reply about the quality of the book.

My point is this, when one feels slighted or wronged, regardless of how petty or serious others may view the matter, there must be closure before one can move on. To cma6, I say mocking and insulting the aggrieved party will hardly help resolve anything, while to Dink Heckler I say you are merely living up to your chosen nickname and succeeding admirably.

Toppy     

Quote:


Thanks for the concern, but your words are earnestly ignored. I hardly consider bringing up and issue twice in two years sufficient to warrant the your claim of being in "danger of completely losing the plot." You earlier claimed that I am biased, and somehow that my responses are unwarranted. Heres an idea: let's keep the debate textual and eliminate the personal attacks. 

It is interesting that it is the person who is wronged that is usually subjected to moral judgements when the one who makes creates the situation that yields the victim is protected from judgment. 

Amazing is it not?

Lwolf123 wrote on 07/15/07 at 19:54:29:


that's fascinating given that I never claim Bc4 to be a novelty. but I guess haters and people who can't read love to post. Now what's fascinating about your remarks, is that you are attacking ideas that have been published, debated, and applauded to be a GM's analysis, but somehow you claim that because they are my ideas they lose all that good ol' objectivity and novelty because they come from an amateur. If you claims are correct, then is it also not the case that Mikalevksi's analysis would be just as bad, if not worse as they are after my errant posts, yet seem to resemble them so closely.

And its amazing that you are claiming that this is all computer analysis, when I could have sworn I stated I thought "over the board" that 11...Qxe4 had promise, and checked the analysis with Fritz9 and Shredder before posting. So your ad homineum attack demonstrates what exactly.?

This idiot continues, 

Anyway, Tommy continues 13.Nxc8 Nxc5!!

I just about want to puke when I see two exclams after that move. It’s inappropriate and clearly indicates that Tommy is not an experienced player. So Black doesn't immediately capture the piece? Maybe the move deserves an one exclam. But at depth 13, even Fritz 6 has 13..Nxc5 as the best move. Even without a computer, it’s fairly obvious to a reasonable player that that is one of the candidates to be looked at also. Once again Tommy is spewing computer analysis at us.

It is interesting that the post from 7/7/05 says Mikalevski did not even consider this move given that he dismisses 11...Qxe4. Are you choosing not to read???? This is a demonstration that you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. If you took to time to follow the history of the debate, then you could perhaps speak as if you have some semblance of intellect. 

If this move is so obvious, why was in not in the Cheparinov vs. Matoros game that Mikalevksi uses to introduce the idea of 10. c5 to the chesspublishing community. I guess it is obvious to everyone a year later after the analysis is readily available, right? But I guess you are right, even GM's miss obvious analysis, and I despite choosing to look at 11...Qxe4 in depth only went with fritz. Come on man, you are trying to hard to get noticed.

I'm sure someone will flame me for this.. please.. go for it.

From the moment Tommy posted  his analysis, this thread became interesting too me. I can’t believe no one’s questioned the pathetic analysis, particularly in light of how proud Tommy appears to be of it. I can understand perhaps some restraint when an amateur posts analysis, but this guy actually thinks he’s done something magnificent.  Perhaps years ago, he posted the real stuff that should have garnered him some kind of claim to fame, but if it was anything like the bit of analysis he posted here, I think not.
 
At move 12, Tommy points out 12.Bc4!? as HIS novelty. Is this some kind of joke? It's the only other move the computers suggest as playable for White. Looking at Tommy's supposed 'analysis' it's obvious he's just done a computer dump. Every move he gives in the 12.Bc4 line is Fritz's top choice. Is this a coincidence? I think not. If there's any plagiarism going on here, it's Tommy taking credit for Fritz's moves. The only original analysis in the line is when he offers up a line against Smyslov Fan's 14.Ne7? To Smyslov Fan's credit, he was obviously not using a computer when he came up with that move. There, of course, Tommy lists the top engine choices for Black as the refutation, pausing even to give the obvious 16..f6 an inappropriate exclam when there are at least five other moves that also win. A reasonable player would have stopped analyzing 14.Ne7 after a couple moves when it was clear Black was winning a piece. At the end of the Smyslov refutation he has an evaluation of =+ in a position that is clearly winning for Black (-+).

Continuing on with the main line, he credits Mikalevski for the move 13.cxd6 in a sub variation. I'd always considered 13.cxd6 as the main line, but in this one instance, Tommy considers 13.Nxc8 (the computers 2nd or 3rd choice), the main line. In Tommy's mind, perhaps this makes the whole variation seem more like his Theoretical novelty? He can't call it his if the main line continues with 13.cxd6 and mostly Mikalevski's analysis after that.

Anyway, Tommy continues 13.Nxc8 Nxc5!!

I just about want to puke when I see two exclams after that move. It’s inappropriate and clearly indicates that Tommy is not an experienced player. So Black doesn't immediately capture the piece? Maybe the move deserves an one exclam. But at depth 13, even Fritz 6 has 13..Nxc5 as the best move. Even without a computer, it’s fairly obvious to a reasonable player that that is one of the candidates to be looked at also. Once again Tommy is spewing computer analysis at us.

At the end of the 'main line' Tommy indicates =, 'given Black has the initiative'. From a straight material point of view it's equal with black having two pawns for the exchange. He also fails to note that Black could repeat positions at move 15 with 15..Qe4. That would be enough to turn any White player from this line. Black has at least a draw and can play on to win if they want. No further analysis necessary.

Given that Tommy's main line of 13.Nxc8 is refuted by BLack two moves later, White has to find something else.. like Mikalevski's 13.cxd6.

None of Tommy's comments are meaningful in his analysis either. Things like 'as usual I found something better', '13..Nc5!! this is my novelty', are at best arrogant, but when seen in light of the actual position they just make Tommy look foolish. I think he uses the term 'initiative' for any position he doesn't understand where the computer has evaluated it favorable for one side or the other.

I could go on about this analysis by Tommy. It's entertaining to look at though, mainly because of the dichotomy of how bad it is, and how good Tommy thinks it is.

I took a cursory look at some of the links Tommy just posted.. it's all hokem. I see now why 13..Nc5 gets two exclams. Mikalevsky missed it in his own analysis according to one of the links. Yea.. that's what exclams are about.

Teyko wrote on 07/15/07 at 04:48:06:


"Victor has always denied this, and we could find no copy of the email Tommy sent to him, so I don't think it is fair to keep repeating this. "

"Secondly, I did not write NIC because Tony said Viktor claims he did not do it, and I am not willing to fight a battle that would drain more energy than it is worth. The chesspublishing community can clearly see that my analysis on this specific variation was posted online before his NIC article and the updates in which he omitted my name and did not give me credit. "

Teyko,
It is completely understandable that you wish to get credit for your ideas and your hard work. 

On the other hand, I, like Tony,  believe that nothing is gain by repeating your claims over and over again over many months here at CP. You are beating a dead horse by constantly revisiting your grievances at CP. 
   Also, since I have seen letters in NIC with similar claims to yours, I'm sure NIC would publish one from you. When I see that you have not done the obvious thing (a letter to NIC), I question your whole project of revisiting your grievances here. Let's let Tony handle the situation as he suggested.

   But I basically do agree with you in your wish to get credit for your work. Note that chess players who have played strong titled players, OTB or correspondence, will have done that kind of high level analysis for years without any reward other than the pleasure of doing the chess analysis.

"TopNotch makes a valid point. To say that Viktor's analysis is objective, when a careful study of the variation on the board and with the computer, seems silly. No one is contesting Viktor's rating, or his title, but to say in 'an appeal to authority' that his analysis rings with "truth" is simply ignoring the facts.  "
However, here I disagree with you. The only one appealing to a higher authority has been Topnotch--by setting up a straw man to knock it down. I have simply acknowledged the obvious: that a 2600 player will have much better positional judgment than a 2400 player, let alone a 2200 player. But in chess matters, I will rely on my own analysis: trust but verify, as Reagan used to say.
  The main reason I will spend more time studying the work of a GM rather than that of an amateur is not so much analysis of particular lines: a patient amateur with Rybka can probably do as good a job as a GM. It is because in the opening the GM has a much deeper and wider knowledge.

fluffy wrote on 07/15/07 at 02:16:36:

Victor has always denied this, and we could find no copy of the email Tommy sent to him, so I don't think it is fair to keep repeating this.
I propose Tommy send me all the 10 c5 analysis (that he put in this post) in a PGN file and I will forward it to Victor when he returns from his tournaments to get his opinion.

i like Mikhalevski's work, and I think he is fairly objective from my observation of his coverage of my preferred lines (Gligoric 7. Be3 and the Samisch among others). 

Gallagher is as biased to Black as Mikhalevski is biased to White. If Mikhalevski plays the KID as often as Karpov, Gallagher plays 1. d4 as often as Fischer 

"Here is to hoping that Mikhalevski's successor will be a bit more pro KID, and let White gripe for a change."

This is exactly what we don't need, "more pro KID". Once we get to that, the analysis will be worthless, merely KID cheerleading. The KID patzers may enjoy it though.

I think Viktor does a fine job on the site, but it was very poor form to blatantly take analysis that was given to him in good faith and then publish it as his own. teyko has never sounded lik,e he was looking for a buck or anything, but expecting a little acknowledgement is pretty reasonable, especially as Viktor deemed the analysis publishable on more than one occasion.

cma6 wrote on 07/14/07 at 14:33:50:


I really don't know the specifics of this situation, so I am not ready to make a solid judgment about who is in the right or wrong.  However, I certainly don't agree that plagiarism should be condoned, no matter the status of the parties involved.  Many non-titled players are certainly capable of original ideas.  Also I think it should be pointed out that the grandmaster title is based on tournament performance, not on the validity of one's theoretical ideas.  However, it is true that the grandmaster title carries a level of authority in the chess community that can certainly be abused to the detriment of non-grandmaster players.  To you, I may be "no one," but I do take notice when the big guy steps on the little guy.  To steal someone's ideas is disrespectful and indicates a lack of integrity.  When you deem this to be acceptable behavior, you are doing a disservice to yourself and your fellow chess players.

Teyko wrote on 07/14/07 at 15:50:17:


This is an unfortunate practice that many professors can get away with due to their status in the academic community.  It puts the student in a terrible situation.  If the student openly contests the plagiarism, then he is often labelled a troublemaker, seriously hurting his future in academia.  In some research groups, it sometimes becomes an accepted practice for the more prominent figures to take credit for the ideas of less well-known contributors in the group.  In such situations, it is common that no one in the group says a word about it, in fear that they will disrupt the harmony of collaboration.  The difference here is that the people being plagiarized often depend on the recognition of their contributions for the livelihood of their career.

[/quote] All this  carping about "original analysis" and credit for the analysis is pathetic. There is nothing lasting or original or copywritable about chess analysis, which is constantly moving forward, seeking the truth on the board or at least the latest version of "the truth." If you are a GM with a name, yes, then it can be "original" analysis. If you are a nobody with a screen name only, then you don't own the idea. Life isn't always fair, as Jimmy Carter once said.

Those who did the original analysis are lucky that a 2600 player even bothered to look at their computer output, let alone used part of it. No one cares who originally did the analysis. When those who first published the analysis get a GM title, then maybe we will care.quote]

Are you serious? This has to be the most ignorant statement made thus far on this board. Your argument is akin to saying that a student who writes a paper should not be given credit for their work if the professor decides to publish their work, because the professor has a Ph.D and the student being a student has no grasp of the "ultimate reality" of their work. 

"Those who did the original analysis are lucky that a 2600 play even bothered to look at their computer output," yeah right, so when a 2600's analysis is reversed by us lowly idiots who have doctorates rather than GM titles, we are simply idle pawns that must submit to the incorrect analysis of annotators who are paid to comment on games. 

As I have said before, a GM title does not protect one from fallibility, I simply have stated that Mikhalevski is wrong about 10.c5, if anyone including the cma6 can prove the positions I have advocated as unplayable, then perhaps we can have a conversation. 

Let me begin by saying that my pointing out of Victor's analysis is not a call to replace him. My argument is quite simply when he is wrong he is wrong. Certainly one would not contend that because his rating is approaching 2600+ he could never be wrong. I am simply saying one, he is taking my analysis of 10.c5 and two, he does not or has not seriously investigated the positions that arise from such a move. 

tommy

Igor Nataf ?

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/04/07 at 07:50:46:


You're right.  The twelfth move is where the glory is...

After 10...h6 11. Bh4 exd4 12. Nd5 g5 I think the best move is simply 13. Bg3
Anybody got a good answer to that?

Following is the critical position too me and occurs after:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 Na6 8. O-O Ng4 9. Bg5 Qe8 10. c5 exd4 11. Nd5 Qxe4 12. Ne7+ Kh8 13. cxd6 cxd6 14. Nxc8 Raxc8 15. Nd2 Qd5 16. Bxg4 Qxg5 17. Bxc8 Rxc8 18. Rc1

http://www.france-echecs.com/diagramme/imgboard.phpfen=2r4k/pp3pbp/n2p2p1/6q1/3p...

I think Rybka somehow knows that exchanging rooks in that KID position is not good. Fritz seems to like keeping the Rook on the open file confronting White's rook. So, Rybka's candidate moves are 18..Rd8 or 18..Rf8, whereas Fritz has other ideas like 18..Rc5. Rybka considers the initial position as almost equal. Fritz evaluates it somewhere between .30 - .50 in White's favor.

I did a little analysis on the position using Rybka, and if I work at it, I think White might still come out better. It's pretty tricky though. My guess is that all other things being equal, someone who's barely familiar with the position after 18.Rc1 as White, will be at a disadvantage against a Black player familiar with the ideas in that position. One idea for Black is, be careful about allowing a rook swap.  

Too me, the critical line has been when White plays 13.cxd6, which is given as a subvariation in the previous analysis from Curry. One of the reasons it's critical is that Khalifman has it as White's main line in his Opening for White according to Kramnik series, and I'm not seeing a particularly pleasant position for Black at the end of that analysis. Black is an exchange down with two doubled isolated center pawns as compensation. 

Golubev's book, Understanding the King's Indian, has some notes on 10.c5 on page 67. He mentions that some of his information comes from a Survey on the 10.c5 line in NIC Yearbook 78 (which I don't have handy). Golubev's comments indicate 10..h6 as possibly the best move. This move is also mentioned on the KID Chesspub site by Mikhalevski.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2007.07.01"]
[Round "?"]
[White "KID 10.c5 vs 2"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "E94"]
[PlyCount "34"]
[EventDate "1999.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 Na6 8. O-O
Ng4 9. Bg5 Qe8 10. c5 {This line is given as favorable for White in
Khalifman's Opening for White according to Kramnik series (OFWATK).} exd4 (10...
h6 {Golubev give's this !?, and with a comment 'the best move?'. Indicating
the juries still out in his mind I think. Mikhalevski  also mentions this move
on the Chesspub KID site.} 11. Bh4 exd4 12. Nd5 g5 13. Bxa6 gxh4 14. Nxc7 Qc6
15. cxd6 bxa6 16. Rc1 Qb7 17. Nxa8 Qxa8 {is unclear according to Golubev.}) 11.
Nd5 Qxe4 12. Ne7+ Kh8 13. cxd6 cxd6 {This is Fritz's first choice, I dont have
the OFWATK book, but a friend of mine says Khalifman provides analysis for
this move and credits the analysis to Mikhalevski page 108 of OFWATK.} 14. Nxc8
Raxc8 (14... Rfxc8 {This could be a little more accurate, as White does not
have the additional option of Be7 a few moves later, and arrives at the same
position being considered.}) 15. Nd2 Qd5 16. Bxg4 (16. Be7) 16... Qxg5 17. Bxc8
Rxc8 {This is the critical position if Black is going to play 13..cxd6. All
the other analysis is meaningless unless Black can come up with some
alternatives prior to this, or if Black can show that his position is ok here.
Is White better? White has quite a few moves that all the chess engines give
as leading to a preferrable game for her. On the other hand it's a material
imbalance and perhaps the chess engines aren't evaluating it correctly.
Khalifman says White is better after 18.Rc1. I think he credits the assessment
to Mikhalevski however.} *

edit: Opening for White according to Anand s/b Opening for White according to Kramnik

Has anyone given this line (11. ...Qxe4) to Rybka to chew on? She's stronger than Fritz and she might have different assessments.

Also has anyone looked into 11. ...Nxc5 as played in Navara-McShane 2005? 12. Ne7 doesn't work and so the idea is 12. Nxc7 Qxe4 13. Nxa8 d3, with, well, another tactical mess (e.g. 14. Re1 dxe2 15. Rxe2 Qc6 16. Be7 Re8 17 Nc7 Nxf2 18. Brain melts). Navara, didn't take the critical path.

Well, I don't have any insight re Michalevski's analysis, but just commenting on some of his suggested replacements: there seems to be a general desire to have a strong KI advocate penning this section. 
It's not clear to me that this is a good thing. This isn't (or shouldn't be) a 'Play the KI (go on, you know you want to...)' type of story...if that's what you want, there are plenty of such products on the market. 

If Chesspub guides are going to carry the torch for one side or the other, then that degrades the product.
Many who are arguing that Mikhalevski is carrying the torch for White would be more than happy to see someone carrying the torch for Black instead...so 'it depends who's ox gets gored'.

I prefer analysis to advocacy. I'm violently opposed to fluffy's suggestion that this section should 'inspire' KID players...but perhaps I'm in a minority, in which case I'll vote with my feet.


EDIT: The Dragon section is perhaps a special case; certainly, the very fact that it has its own section indicates that it isn't going to be quite as objective as it could be...

GMTonyKosten wrote on 06/25/07 at 17:41:43:


Nataf would be high on my list of possible replacements.
 
Yes Mikhalevski's rating is quite impressive, which makes it all the more amusing that teyko has already debunked a critical part of Mikhalevski's earlier "accurate" analysis. Of course anyone's analysis and evaluations can be overturned over time, nevertheless I sense it keenly that Mikhalevski's expends a lot more energy and rigour on finding remedies for White while being quite superficial at times for Black.   

At first I thought it was me just being a bit too sensitive or sentimental about one of my favorite openings. Then I noticed that my observations were shared, felt and expressed by many others not least of all Gallagher himself. 

Toppy

Ever considered asking a Dutchie? Stellwagen? Reinderman? Nijboer? Or are they all too heavily involved with NIC?

GMTonyKosten wrote on 06/25/07 at 11:46:28:


I will post the analysis shortly, but I would hate to have it appear in another yearbook without credit.

Teyko wrote on 06/25/07 at 00:29:47:

Victor's current rating is about 2600, which makes him very strong indeed, and I have always found his analysis to be very accurate. Can you give specific examples of this 'incorrect analysis'?
As to being 'biased', do you mean 'objective'?

I agree TopNotch. Victor's analysis is not only biased, but simply incorrect. Given the significance of these positions and their evidence at high level play, they should be analyzed with an eye toward the "truth" of the position. 

I will send an email to tony with the analysis, since Victor allegedly did not plagarize from the email I sent him before with the novelty of Nc5!!

Bottom line is that this line is not a threat and Black can equalize easily.

Which analysis engine did you use?