Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Yugoslav with 8.dxc5 (Read 61193 times)
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #20 - 10/03/12 at 20:05:48
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 19:54:31:

If GMs can lose from both sides on a regular basis then we can clearly state that we have a position that can be played for a win by anyone(barring 'high level correspondence if it makes you feel better).


It doesn't even take high level correspondence play, truthfully. The position just isn't that complex.

The fact GMs will occasionally drop games in it doesn't mean anything. It's a stupid argument.

Quote:
You are a 2100 player over the board(based on 27 games). But with a computer you suddenly know more than GM Marin? Tell me what has changed.


Knowledge of the position, and hours spent on it. There is nothing about this particular position that only GMs are privy to, although you seem keen on pretending there is.

Quote:

Uh, A sell played game of chess?


Try again.

Quote:

I thought you didn't like statistics? Maybe only when you can use them for your arugment?


I don't like statistics, they are close to useless. I am making the point that even your statistical argument is junk.

Your entire argument is worthless from top to bottom.

Quote:

Definitions prove you wrong. GM practice proves you wrong. Logic proves you wrong. What else do you want. Just because you can draw the position with best play does not make the position a draw. It means it's equal.


Grin

Check out the bolded. You wrote it. Which one of us is having the problem with logic?

Maybe we should argue about some tablebase rook endings. The tablebase will claim it's a draw, you can tell me all about how it's not because some GM managed to lose it. We can even do the opposite! Tablebase rook endings that are a win, and you can tell me it's not winning because a GM drew it!

Grin

Thanks for the laugh.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:44 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 75
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #19 - 10/03/12 at 19:54:31
Post Tools
"...People can lose from completely winning positions. It has nothing to do with the objective appraisal of the position."

If GMs can lose from both sides on a regular basis then we can clearly state that we have a position that can be played for a win by anyone(barring 'high level correspondence if it makes you feel better).

" Yeah, it's the engines. Not the hours of work put into it. No, just engines. I just flip the switch, check a database, and go to bed. I wake up knowing the theory. It's amazing"
You are a 2100 player over the board(based on 27 games). But with a computer you suddenly know more than GM Marin? Tell me what has changed.

"An entirely symmetrical position that follows good moves for both sides results in a... *fill in the blank*."
Uh, A sell played game of chess?

"A GM losing from X position does not have anything to do with the merits of X position. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. That said, practice leans towards draws, and away from decisive results."

I thought you didn't like statistics? Maybe only when you can use them for your arugment?

"Prove. Me. Wrong."
Definitions prove you wrong. GM practice proves you wrong. Logic proves you wrong. What else do you want. Just because you can draw the position with best play does not make the position a draw. It means it's equal.


« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:35 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #18 - 10/03/12 at 19:17:21
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 19:08:11:
"For them to get outplayed requires them to blunder... Duh."
We could extend this to include every single game of chess.


There are numerous games where no gross blunders are necessary to cause a decisive result, but rather the entire opening variation is called into question as being strategically questionable.

It just doesn't apply to this variation.

Quote:

"...white has nothing against good play."
White has a position in which even GMs can lose. I think that means more then your willing to admit.


...People can lose from completely winning positions. It has nothing to do with the objective appraisal of the position.

It's a stupid argument.

Quote:

"The worst part is you're not even arguing against the fact black is completely equal to the point of drawing easily with good play"
I am arguing against the fact the you call this position a draw. There is the whole game yet to be played. Just because on move 9 the position is symmetrical does not mean that it's an easy draw. I think it's a balanced position. That means that without mistakes it will be a draw. When was the last time you played a game without mistakes?


Prove. Me. Wrong.

Without game-altering mistakes? I've played quite a few. Just not as many as GMs have. It still doesn't matter concerning the appraisal of this position.

Quote:

"Engines aren't the reason the position will ultimately conclude in a draw."
Engines are the reason why you think you know more about the position than GMs:)


Face-palm. Yeah, it's the engines. Not the hours of work put into it. No, just engines. I just flip the switch, check a database, and go to bed. I wake up knowing the theory. It's amazing.

This is the person I'm arguing with. Good God.

Quote:

"Find me ONE game with a decisive result where black lost as a result of playing good moves."
It would hard to find a game from any balanced position that one side lost after making 'good' moves. If you lose, then somewhere along the line you made a bad move. Isn't this obvious?


Come on. Follow the trail of bread crumbs. An entirely symmetrical position that follows good moves for both sides results in a... *fill in the blank*.

Quote:

"Any white player that chooses this continuation is hoping, praying, and wishing that black screws up, else it is going to be a prospectless draw."
You are not qualified to make that statement. That would require you to be able read other peoples minds!


I am qualified to make that statement, unless an individual believes they are going to achieve a tangible advantage out of the opening from this entirely symmetrical position.

Again. Prove. Me. Wrong.

Quote:

"Marin's statement flies in the face of current theory, and practice."
Wrong. Current practice shows GMs losing from both sides of the position.


You still don't get it, and frankly I'm wondering if you ever will.

A GM losing from X position does not have anything to do with the merits of X position. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. That said, practice leans towards draws, and away from decisive results.

Quote:

I have an interest in this position. That's why I was following the thread. You made a ludicrous statement and have spent the rest of this thread trying to defend it. Words have meaning. If you misuse them, be prepared for someone to call you on it. GMs apparently do not agree with your opinion about the position. Nor do I. Just because you can't find ways to pose problems from the position doesn't mean that no one can.


Prove. Me. Wrong.

Pose me some problems. You have white to move after 8...dxc5.

Let's do this. Either theory will advance as a result of this disagreement, or I get to laugh at you for trodding paths I've already looked at. Let's go.

Get GM help if you've got it. Use a supercomputer to help your analysis. It won't save you.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:25 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 75
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #17 - 10/03/12 at 19:08:11
Post Tools
"For them to get outplayed requires them to blunder... Duh."
We could extend this to include every single game of chess.

"...white has nothing against good play."
White has a position in which even GMs can lose. I think that means more then your willing to admit.


"The worst part is you're not even arguing against the fact black is completely equal to the point of drawing easily with good play"
I am arguing against the fact the you call this position a draw. There is the whole game yet to be played. Just because on move 9 the position is symmetrical does not mean that it's an easy draw. I think it's a balanced position. That means that without mistakes it will be a draw. When was the last time you played a game without mistakes? 

"Engines aren't the reason the position will ultimately conclude in a draw."
Engines are the reason why you think you know more about the position than GMs:)

"Find me ONE game with a decisive result where black lost as a result of playing good moves."
It would hard to find a game from any balanced position that one side lost after making 'good' moves. If you lose, then somewhere along the line you made a bad move. Isn't this obvious?

"Any white player that chooses this continuation is hoping, praying, and wishing that black screws up, else it is going to be a prospectless draw."
You are not qualified to make that statement. That would require you to be able read other peoples minds!

"Marin's statement flies in the face of current theory, and practice."
Wrong. Current practice shows GMs losing from both sides of the position. 

"I'm trying to figure out if you're serious, or just trolling at this point."
I have an interest in this position. That's why I was following the thread. You made a ludicrous statement and have spent the rest of this thread trying to defend it. Words have meaning. If you misuse them, be prepared for someone to call you on it. GMs apparently do not agree with your opinion about the position. Nor do I. Just because you can't find ways to pose problems from the position doesn't mean that no one can.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:16 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #16 - 10/03/12 at 18:41:53
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 17:17:31:
This is getting funny. You think it takes gross blunders to change the evaluation? Really? Have you looked at some high level games from that position? I see people getting outplayed.


I checked all of the lines thoroughly as part of the book I'm writing, because it would have made an easy fix compared to dealing with the Yugoslav proper. When you do that you'll quickly discover the sobering reality that white has nothing against good play, and that all decisive results stem from very poor play.

Period.

The worst part is you're not even arguing against the fact black is completely equal to the point of drawing easily with good play (not even perfect play - it just has to be good!), you're arguing that black can mess up over the board which doesn't matter at all when it comes to the objective appraisal of the position.

Quote:

The reason it wouldn't take much effort to draw in correspondence chess is because engines play really strong chess:)


Engines aren't the reason the position will ultimately conclude in a draw. It will ultimately conclude in a draw because it is completely symmetrical, and impossible to pose concrete, or long-term problems in.

Engines just make sure black doesn't commit any gross blunders. You know, the kind required to actually obtain a real advantage with either side from this position.

The rest of your post was snipped due to being entirely irrelevant. I'm tired of arguing with someone that thinks that elite GMs trotting out a dead equal line in the hopes of catching a napping opponent is going to change things.

Or better yet, you can one-up me if you want. Find an advantage in any line from that position. Show me the error of my ways.

If you can't, then do this: Lips Sealed
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:11:07 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 75
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #15 - 10/03/12 at 17:17:31
Post Tools
This is getting funny. You think it takes gross blunders to change the evaluation? Really? Have you looked at some high level games from that position? I see people getting outplayed. 
The reason it wouldn't take much effort to draw in correspondence chess is because engines play really strong chess:)
You say "Elite GMs try to win objectively drawn endgames against each other as a routine matter". Yet, from the position we are discussing you say "Black equalizes, and when he does there's nothing left."? Maybe, What's left is a position that elite GMs can try to win against each other.  
I hope that you put more thought into your book than you did into this debate. I can only imagine how you assess opening positions?! 
"It's a draw in correspondence play."
Like I said, Chess is a draw. What's the point?

Marin - The main drawback of this variation is that White can retain a tiny edge without any risk by means of 8.dxc5.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:59 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #14 - 10/03/12 at 17:03:30
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 16:57:22:
I agree that zoo hit the nail on the head. The position is equal. The position is not a draw! That's what I've been saying the whole time.
I also agree with Vass's comment that players will try to win from equal positions against weaker opposition. I will go one farther and say that strong GMs try to win from the position on move 9 against other strong GMs and even succeed sometimes:)
Comparing that position to drawn endgames misses the point. A drawn endgame can usually be held by knowing a particular technique. You have a whole game of chess ahead of you from that position.
My hypothetical draw offer is still out there BPaulsen. Are you accepting or declining?


It's a draw in correspondence play. You can hold the draw by playing in a particular technique against all white attempts. It's no different at all from the drawn endgame analogy. If we're playing correspondence, then I'd accept the draw. If not, then no, I'd sit around and pray for a blunder - there is a reason I called the entire continuation "hope chess" earlier.

And it wouldn't even take much effort to draw it in correspondence. The only thing that changes the evaluation of the line is gross blunders...just like with the endgame analogy.

Elite GMs try to win objectively drawn endgames against eachother as a routine matter - your argument isn't getting any better.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:49 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 75
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #13 - 10/03/12 at 16:57:22
Post Tools
I agree that zoo hit the nail on the head. The position is equal. The position is not a draw! That's what I've been saying the whole time.
I also agree with Vass's comment that players will try to win from equal positions against weaker opposition. I will go one farther and say that strong GMs try to win from the position on move 9 against other strong GMs and even succeed sometimes:)
Comparing that position to drawn endgames misses the point. A drawn endgame can usually be held by knowing a particular technique. You have a whole game of chess ahead of you from that position.
My hypothetical draw offer is still out there BPaulsen. Are you accepting or declining?
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:40 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #12 - 10/03/12 at 16:16:32
Post Tools
zoo pretty much hit the nail on the head... and Vass' response to TNich hopefully made him see the light.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:26 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #11 - 10/03/12 at 08:17:48
Post Tools
Quote:
so, perhaps it's less controversial to call the position "dead equal" rather than "a draw", since everybody agrees that the position is dead equal, yet such positions are not always drawn in practice (see also the finish of the recent Nakamura-Giri d3-Qe2 Petrov).

As for why dead-equal positions make more draws in corr chess, my feeling is that the players are often trapped in some "local optimum", ie none can eject the opponent out of the drawing zone. This is what we saw when the top GMs played the Petrov for a draw : Black could concede a small disadvantadge, but White had no promising strategy (meaning he couldn't win by himself) and Black's technique was strong enough to avoid blundering to White's feeble threats (meaning he couldn't lose by himself). In corr chess this looks the same for many more positions, not just the dead-equal ones : for the players, the computer is an angel who protects them from blundering in equal or inferior positions, making it more difficult to win by provoking your opponent's mistakes. This is where the "local optimum" comes in : the (defensive) tactical power of the computer tends to reduce the strategic (aggressive) gap between players, as the use of computers make most of us strategic dwarfs and tacticals giants. 


Fully agree with you!  Lips Sealed
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:18 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
zoo
Ex Member


Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #10 - 10/03/12 at 07:43:47
Post Tools
so, perhaps it's less controversial to call the position "dead equal" rather than "a draw", since everybody agrees that the position is dead equal, yet such positions are not always drawn in practice (see also the finish of the recent Nakamura-Giri d3-Qe2 Petrov).

As for why dead-equal positions make more draws in corr chess, my feeling is that the players are often trapped in some "local optimum", ie none can eject the opponent out of the drawing zone. This is what we saw when the top GMs played the Petrov for a draw : Black could concede a small disadvantadge, but White had no promising strategy (meaning he couldn't win by himself) and Black's technique was strong enough to avoid blundering to White's feeble threats (meaning he couldn't lose by himself). In corr chess this looks the same for many more positions, not just the dead-equal ones : for the players, the computer is an angel who protects them from blundering in equal or inferior positions, making it more difficult to win by provoking your opponent's mistakes. This is where the "local optimum" comes in : the (defensive) tactical power of the computer tends to reduce the strategic (aggressive) gap between players, as the use of computers make most of us strategic dwarfs and tacticals giants. 

« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:10:10 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Vass
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1105
Joined: 06/22/11
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #9 - 10/03/12 at 06:27:31
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 02:05:12:
.... If you and I ever play against each other and we reached this position would you accept my draw offer? Why not? If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless:)

The strength and abilities of the players in OTB games don't have a thing in common with the objectivity that the position is dead equal. A better player will try to win even a dead drawn pawn ending against a weaker opposition.  Wink
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:59 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 75
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #8 - 10/03/12 at 02:05:12
Post Tools
We're being objective now? OK. 
"Forgetting theory or playing poorly isn't unheard of. It is never, I repeat never, a matter concerning the objective merits of the position."
Of course it concerns the objective merits of the position. If the position is losable by some of the best players in the world, then we can say that your statement 'Black equalizes, and when he does there's nothing left.' does not reflect reality.
"Try getting away with decisive results in high level correspondence play."
You mean when you have many days to analyze with an engine? You could say the same thing about any mainstream opening on move 9. 
"If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless."
I know why it's hard to win in correspondence chess. People have more time and can use engines and tablebases. That doesn't explain why you think a position is drawn on move 9. It also doesn't explain why strong players still lose from both sides from that position. There are many main line openings that lead to equal positions. Are those drawn too? I think that the starting position is probably drawn with best play. Should we not play chess? If you and I ever play against each other and we reached this position would you accept my draw offer? Why not? If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless:)
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:50 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #7 - 10/03/12 at 01:23:29
Post Tools
TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 00:07:35:

Well, Apparently quite a few 2600+ GMs don't know the theory because they have lost from this 'drawn' position. And one 2800+ GM lost as white. Why don't you address that in your post?


Forgetting theory or playing poorly isn't unheard of. It is never, I repeat never, a matter concerning the objective merits of the position.

Try getting away with decisive results in high level correspondence play.

Hint: you won't.

If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless.
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:34 by TN »  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
TNich
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 75
Location: Lansing, MI
Joined: 04/19/08
Gender: Male
Re: Yugoslav with 8.dxc5
Reply #6 - 10/03/12 at 00:07:35
Post Tools
"No, it's not harsh to call it a draw. Black equalizes, and when he does there's nothing left. I repeat - white is hoping black doesn't know the theory to whatever sideline he chooses. If he does, he gets nothing in the purest sense of the term "nothing"."

Well, Apparently quite a few 2600+ GMs don't know the theory because they have lost from this 'drawn' position. And one 2800+ GM lost as white. Why don't you address that in your post?
There is a big difference between equality and a drawn position. Perhaps, You could defend the black side better than some of these 2600+ guys? No disrespect intended but I don't think so. 
To call the position after 9 moves with only one pawn exchanged drawn is premature in the purest sense of the term "premature"Smiley
« Last Edit: 10/04/12 at 04:09:25 by TN »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo