Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters (Read 1411 times)
cathexis
God Member
*****
Offline


No matter where you go,
there you are.

Posts: 591
Joined: 03/03/20
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #14 - 02/04/24 at 13:42:09
Post Tools
Off-topic but I enjoyed this take on computer limitations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UuvwY6CdLo

"Why can't robots check the box that says, 'I'm not a robot?'"

[Hint: You pass by exhibiting incompetence]
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 876
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #13 - 02/01/24 at 15:15:58
Post Tools
Unclear: would be bust within five moves against the computer, before turning the board around and getting exactly the same result  Smiley
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1652
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #12 - 02/01/24 at 02:54:16
Post Tools
brabo wrote on 01/31/24 at 06:52:00:
Personally I use the unclear sign for an equal position but which I could still mess up without assistance of the computer.

Yes that's a good use of unclear. Back in the 90s (engines were not strong then) GM Wolff explained that "unclear" means the annotator is being lazy. After that I tried not to publish anything with the "unclear" symbol. Even a few words explaining why I didn't know the evaluation would be more helpful for an amateur.

Within my own analysis, I intend unclear as a sort of TODO, meaning I have to return later and analyze more. Don't tell Patrick. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 1068
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #11 - 01/31/24 at 06:52:00
Post Tools
Nernstian59 wrote on 01/31/24 at 02:55:39:
At one point, Kaidanov quotes analysis by Byrne and Mednis in Informant 28 where a position is declared "unclear". He notes, "There is no such word in today's chess!" Perhaps this a sly remark on how engines have removed uncertainty in evaluating positions, or at least given the impression that they have. Out of curiosity, I got out ECO B Volume II (published in 2021) and saw that it still has plenty of ∞ symbols at the ends of variations. So perhaps Kaidanov was exaggerating for effect.  I do have the impression that analysts today tend to lean on their engines' evaluations rather than simply throwing their hands and saying the position is unclear.


Personally I use the unclear sign for an equal position but which I could still mess up without assistance of the computer. The computer can hold the balance but for us humans the 3 results are still very possible.

It is an interpretation of the unclear sign as there exists no general rule. I guess many other annotators use a similar interpretation.

So Kaidanov and the annotators are both right. For the computer the unclear-sign is very rarely still applicable. We humans don't have the skills to proof the equality and therefore it is unclear.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Nernstian59
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 155
Joined: 12/15/21
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #10 - 01/31/24 at 02:55:39
Post Tools
Kaidanov annotates his game with JvF in the January 2024 issue of Chess Life. His comments on the following points seemed noteworthy:

He elaborated on his video interview (see Reply # 6) saying he didn't remember much of the Meran theory, but playing "moves that made sense" allowed him to reach the position after move 13. He then says, "...here I had the oddest flashback in my mind! What I realized was that if I played 14.Be4, we would transpose into Polugaevsky-Mednis. Memory is a very strange thing. Sometimes you can't remember the lines you looked at right before the game, but sometimes, like in this case, you recall what you saw in a chess magazine 44 years ago!" I can certainly relate. Posts in this forum that I wrote a few months ago look unfamiliar to me, yet I clearly recall passages from Moles' Winawer book that I read back in the 70s.

After 14.Be4 Qb6, Kaidanov says he was on high alert, thinking that van Foreest may have analyzed the position with an engine and found something that overturned the old theoretical verdict. Thus, despite remembering the Polugaevsky-Mednis game, Kaidanov seemed to have an uneasy feeling that he was walking into his opponent's prep. Only after JvF took a long think for his 20th move did it become clear to Kaidanov that van Foreest had missed something.

At one point, Kaidanov quotes analysis by Byrne and Mednis in Informant 28 where a position is declared "unclear". He notes, "There is no such word in today's chess!" Perhaps this a sly remark on how engines have removed uncertainty in evaluating positions, or at least given the impression that they have. Out of curiosity, I got out ECO B Volume II (published in 2021) and saw that it still has plenty of ∞ symbols at the ends of variations. So perhaps Kaidanov was exaggerating for effect.  I do have the impression that analysts today tend to lean on their engines' evaluations rather than simply throwing their hands and saying the position is unclear.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nernstian59
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 155
Joined: 12/15/21
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #9 - 10/22/23 at 19:26:20
Post Tools
kylemeister - Thanks for sharing that excerpt from Mednis' book. I find such stories about the evolution of an opening line to be quite helpful in understanding why particular moves (such as 14.Be4) are played. It's interesting that Mednis and Dobosz analyzed the line together. I was unaware of this, but it makes sense since both had to face 14.Be4. I suspect that the analysis was done after the 1980 Gregorian-Dobosz game I mentioned in Reply #1 because Dobosz played 19...Rh8 in that game and not the 19...c5 that he and Mednis identified as being a key to an "accurate defense".

I looked through some Semi-Slav and Meran books, and the only one that I found that covered the 14.Be4 line was Pedersen's The Meran System (Gambit, 2000). He says that Black has equalized against the apparently more aggressive 13.e5 Nd7 14.Be4, giving 14...Rb8 and citing two games, Gelfand-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1998 and Karpov-Antunes, Tilburg 1994. I see that you noted 14...Rb8 being given as an equalizer in the 2004 edition of ECO D, so this seems to be the opinion around the turn of the century.

Pedersen doesn't give any alternatives to 14...Rb8, perhaps because he says it equalizes fairly easily. Apparently for this reason, 13.e5 is just a side note in his analysis. His main line is 13.Qe2, which he believes has chances of achieving a small advantage for White. He says that this last move has become the preference of strong players. Perhaps the tide of fashion has moved on yet again since a database search shows that 13.e5 is the most frequent move in games played in the 2010-present time period.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4897
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #8 - 10/21/23 at 00:50:03
Post Tools
Nernstian59 -- by the way, 18. Qd3+ also didn't appear in the 1996 edition (the only one between 1987 and 2004).

Here is Edmar Mednis in his book Strategic Chess: Mastering the Closed Game (on 14. Qc2 in Korchnoi-Polugaevsky, game 3 of their 1977 candidates match):

"A normal move. However, since the game Polugaevsky-Mednis, Riga Interzonal 1979, the critical line is considered to be 14. Be4!?. After the game Polugaevsky told me that he had discovered this while preparing for his 1977 match against Korchnoi and had been surprised that Korchnoi had not used it. Thus I turned out to be the guinea pig. After the reasonable 14...Qb6 (by smoothly protecting the QB Black is ready for the equalizing 15...c5), White showed the fine tactical point of his previous strategic move by playing 15. Bg5 with the idea that the obvious 15...Bxg5 allows 16. Bxh7+! Kxg7 17. Ng5+ Kg6 (17...Kg8?? 18. Qh5 is hopeless) 18. Qg4. I decided to trust Polugaevsky on this. Later analysis by me and IM Dobosz showed that White's attack is indeed very dangerous, but that with the accurate defense 18...f5! 19. Qg3 c5!, Black winds up only slightly inferior after 20. Nxe6+ Kf7 21. Nxf8 Rxf8 22. dxc5 Nxc5.

In any case, Black must allow that, since my "safe" 15...Rfe8?! 16. Bxe7 Rxe7 led to chronic weaknesses of the Queenside after [...]"

« Last Edit: 10/21/23 at 06:30:07 by kylemeister »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nernstian59
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 155
Joined: 12/15/21
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #7 - 10/20/23 at 20:39:59
Post Tools
kylemeister - Thanks for sharing that Kaidanov video interview. He seems quite humble and down to earth. It's interesting that he says he doesn't remember the details of this variation of the Meran, though he recalls ideas. Perhaps he's being modest since he correctly identified the position after 14.Be4 as having occurred in Polugaevsky-Mednis, Riga 1979. I wonder if anyone has asked JvF what he was thinking when he played 15...Bxg5.

kylemeister wrote on 10/19/23 at 19:20:18:
A couple of old books (Pachman's Das Damengambit from 1992 and ECO from 2004) actually gave 18. Qg4 f5 19. Qg3 as only slightly better for White (Pachman continued with 19...c5 and a variation attributed to Korchnoi). But ECO also gave 18. Qd3+ Kxg5 19. f4+ Kh6 20. Qh3+ Kg6 21. f5+ ef5 22. Rf4 with a decisive advantage (Milov).

My 1987 edition of ECO has the 18.Qg4 f5 19.Qg3 variation, but not the one beginning with 18.Qd3+. I wonder if the engines available in 2004 where able to assist Milov in coming up with that more decisive line.

My 1987 ECO gives 18.Qg4 f5 19.Qg3 c5 20.Nxe6+ Kf7 21.Nxf8 Rxf8 22.dxc5 Nxc5 23.Rad1 Kg8 24.Rd6 Qb5 25.Rfd1+/=. Stockfish evaluates the position after 25.Rfd1 more optimistically for White (+/-), but the engine also points out that White was too eager to cash in on his initiative by unleashing the discovered check on move 20. The black king is in a box, so the engine prefers to devote a couple moves to bringing the rooks into play via 20.Rfe1 cxd4 21.Rad1 before going in for Nxe6+. These rook moves give White a considerably larger advantage than the immediate 20.Nxe6+.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4897
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #6 - 10/20/23 at 15:05:01
Post Tools
By the way, Kaidanov comments on the JvF game here (starting at about 2:30).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN_yA-p-E6Q
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 699
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #5 - 10/20/23 at 14:19:18
Post Tools
FreeRepublic wrote on 10/20/23 at 00:50:29:
I remember following a game live online, but I can't find it now.


Not exactly as I remembered it, but fun to go through:
[Event "Ch USA"]
[Site "Saint Louis (USA)"]
[Date "2012.05.15"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Ramirez Alejandro (USA)"]
[Black "Kaidanov Gregory S (USA)"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D51"]
[WhiteElo "2554"]
[BlackElo "2598"]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]
[Remark ""]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c6 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.e3 Be7 8.Bd3 Ne4 9.Bf4 Ndf6 10.h3 O-O 11.Qc2 Re8 12.O-O Bd6 13.Ne5 g6 14.Ne2 Nh5 15.Bh2 f6 16.f3 fxe5 17.fxe4 exd4 18.e5 Bxe5 19.Bxe5 Rxe5 20.Bxg6 Qg5 21.Bxh7+ Kg7 22.Nxd4 Rxe3 23.h4 Qh6 24.Rf2 Ng3 25.Raf1 Nxf1 26.Rxf1 Be6 27.Bf5 Bg8 28.Bc8 Bh7 29.Nf5+ Bxf5 30.Qxf5 Kh8 31.Qd7 Rg3 32.Qxb7 Rg8 33.Bh3 Raf8 34.Rxf8 Rxf8 35.Qxa7 Qc1+ 36.Kh2 Qf4+ 37.Kg1 Qxh4 38.Qe3 Qf4 39.Qe7 Qf6 40.Qc5 Qf1+ 41.Kh2 Qf4+ 42.Kg1 Re8 43.Qf2 Qxf2+ 44.Kxf2 c5 45.Bd7 Re7 46.Bc6 d4 47.Bb5 Kg7 48.a4 Kf6 49.b3 Re3 50.Bc4 Ke5 51.a5 Ke4 52.a6 Rc3 53.a7 Rc2+ 54.Be2 Ra2 55.a8Q+ Rxa8 56.Bf3+ Kd3 57.Bxa8 Kc2 58.g4 Kxb3 59.g5 c4 60.g6 d3 61.g7 d2 62.Bf3 c3 63.g8Q+ Kb2 64.Bd1 1-0
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 876
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #4 - 10/20/23 at 12:54:52
Post Tools
Well, if you swim in the waters of American Swisses, being congenitally overoptimistic is probably not a bad thing  Smiley
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 699
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #3 - 10/20/23 at 00:50:29
Post Tools
I remember following a game live online, but I can't find it now. As I recall it was Dominguez-Kaidanov. It was the exchange variation of the Queen's gambit declined. Kaidanov kept pressing his king-side play at the expense of development. I thought, who needs to play the King's Indian? He had the win, but miscalculated and allowed a passed (queen?) pawn to run. The mate he was looking for, wasn't there.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4897
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #2 - 10/19/23 at 19:20:18
Post Tools
A couple of old books (Pachman's Das Damengambit from 1992 and ECO from 2004) actually gave 18. Qg4 f5 19. Qg3 as only slightly better for White (Pachman continued with 19...c5 and a variation attributed to Korchnoi). But ECO also gave 18. Qd3+ Kxg5 19. f4+ Kh6 20. Qh3+ Kg6 21. f5+ ef5 22. Rf4 with a decisive advantage (Milov).

I came across a video by a popular YouTuber in which he mentioned some alternatives to 14...Qb6, but none of them was 14...Rb8, which in ECO was the only move not leading to advantage for White. (One of the cited games was Kaidanov-R. Vasquez, Chicago 2003.)
« Last Edit: 10/20/23 at 02:05:37 by kylemeister »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Nernstian59
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 155
Joined: 12/15/21
Re: Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
Reply #1 - 10/19/23 at 18:42:47
Post Tools
It's surprising that as strong a player as JvF would miss such a familiar tactic.  As ChessBase's report on the game says, "For chess enthusiasts and club players all over the world, it is nice to see strong grandmasters making opening mistakes occasionally..." After 16...Kxh7 17.Nxg5+ Kg6, the report continues, "well-known club-level patterns begin to appear: i.e. 18.Qg4 f5 19.Qg3". Answering ...Kg6 with Qg4 is a well known motif in the Greek Gift sacrifice, and it's certainly winning, but interestingly, Stockfish considers 18.Re1 and 18.Qd3+ to be even stronger.

Curious if this particular form of the Bxh7+ sac had occurred previously, I found two such games in the Mega Database: K.Gregorian-H.Dobosz, Yerevan 1980 and A.Williams-J.Cooper, WLS Ch Wales 1982. They both followed the Kaidanov-van Foreest game through 19.Qg3. The 1980 game was 1-0 in 33, but the 1982 game ended in a draw when White missed a number of forced mates (albeit mates in 8 or 9 and one mate in 5) and settled for a perpetual.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4897
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Kaidanov-J. van Foreest, Qatar Masters
10/18/23 at 14:35:01
Post Tools
I thought it was a bit striking that Van Foreest played into something which is losing according to old theory (in a D47 Meran by transposition): 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Bd3 dc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 b4 9. Ne4 Nbd7 10. Nxf6+ Nxf6 11. e4 Bb7 12. 0-0 0-0 13. e5 Nd7 14. Be4 Qb6 15. Bg5 Bxg5 16. Bxh7+ (1-0 in 31).

Incidentally, the age difference there was 40 years. (I remember Gregory playing and advocating the Meran years before JvF was born.)
« Last Edit: 10/18/23 at 17:35:12 by kylemeister »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo