seems interesting to take a notebook with a modern Chess Engine (but without TB, and 1 core should be enough) use a timemachine and visit the chess legends like Steinitz,Tarrasch, Lasker, Capablance etc at there best time and play a match of lets say 30 tournament time control games.
I would pay a lot of money to see such a match!
I think expect Lasker to be able to win 1 or 2 games, but not the match, and would expect Capablanca to play a lot of draws.....
Regards
Andi
Yes, that would be fun to see!
We give these players a lot of reverence but they would probably be pretty weak compared to the best players of today so I think they would be embarrassed pretty badly.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
BubbaTough wrote:I suspect most masters would reject ...Rb8 because it seems likely white can get 2 connected passed pawns and advance them quickly for a win. Thus, they would play something active (Rd2) even in bullet chess. It would take a lot of work for a human to confirm or deny whether this is really the best move. The computer is going to be much better than humans at working out the details.
Rook endgames are probably the area human intuition most often is superior to computer calculation (other than perhaps locked or fortress positions) because human heuristics about what is likely to win and what is likely to draw are pretty good, and most top programs lack good approximations of these heuristics. Nevertheless, the ability to work out the details is so important and so useful, I suspect even in rook endgames computers are better than humans at most non-postal time controls. Sure, you can cherry pick certain endgames where humans are better, but generally speaking, its darn likely computers are still better.
On a week a move though, I would pick Kramnik in any rook endgame over a cluster of computers. Somehow, I doubt that hypothesis will be tested.
-Sam
[d]8/5p1k/r5pp/P7/3R3P/6P1/5PK1/8 w - -
This is Alekhine vs Capablanca.
I have to see the first (top) program that plays 1.Ra4
seems interesting to take a notebook with a modern Chess Engine (but without TB, and 1 core should be enough) use a timemachine and visit the chess legends like Steinitz,Tarrasch, Lasker, Capablance etc at there best time and play a match of lets say 30 tournament time control games.
I would pay a lot of money to see such a match!
I think expect Lasker to be able to win 1 or 2 games, but not the match, and would expect Capablanca to play a lot of draws.....
Regards
Andi
Yes, that would be fun to see!
We give these players a lot of reverence but they would probably be pretty weak compared to the best players of today so I think they would be embarrassed pretty badly.
Don, once Lasker was traveling place to place by train, and this was a rather long trip. He walked down the aisle and saw a kid with a small chess set playing himself. Lasker stood over him watching, till the boy noticed his presence- but had no idea who he was. The kid asked him if he played, and Lasker said he had tried a couple of times, but never really got the hang of it. The kid told him to sit down if he wanted to watch a master at work. Lasker later said he only did it because the kid was such an arrogant ass. The first game Lasker played like it was his first time and let the kid win in about a dozen moves. So the kid said to make it fair he would take his queen off the board. He was really getting cute now. Lasker said he had to let him win again, because he had already seen the kid couldn't beat him with 3 queens. After the game was over, Lasker told him it wasn't fair to try and pull a stunt like that on him. He told the kid "when you take your queen off the board, it is too big an advantage for you. It gives your king more room to move around." The kid is laughing now, so Lasker says, "OK, I will remove my queen from the board, and then there is no way you can win." So he does, and demolishes the kid rather quickly. He got up, patted the kid on the shoulder and said "see how much easier it is when you don't have that queen thing on the board getting in your way." Then he walked off saying nothing else. When he looked back, the kid had a queen in his hand just staring at it.
seems interesting to take a notebook with a modern Chess Engine (but without TB, and 1 core should be enough) use a timemachine and visit the chess legends like Steinitz,Tarrasch, Lasker, Capablance etc at there best time and play a match of lets say 30 tournament time control games.
I would pay a lot of money to see such a match!
I think expect Lasker to be able to win 1 or 2 games, but not the match, and would expect Capablanca to play a lot of draws.....
Regards
Andi
Yes, that would be fun to see!
We give these players a lot of reverence but they would probably be pretty weak compared to the best players of today so I think they would be embarrassed pretty badly.
Don, once Lasker was traveling place to place by train, and this was a rather long trip. He walked down the aisle and saw a kid with a small chess set playing himself. Lasker stood over him watching, till the boy noticed his presence- but had no idea who he was. The kid asked him if he played, and Lasker said he had tried a couple of times, but never really got the hang of it. The kid told him to sit down if he wanted to watch a master at work. Lasker later said he only did it because the kid was such an arrogant ass. The first game Lasker played like it was his first time and let the kid win in about a dozen moves. So the kid said to make it fair he would take his queen off the board. He was really getting cute now. Lasker said he had to let him win again, because he had already seen the kid couldn't beat him with 3 queens. After the game was over, Lasker told him it wasn't fair to try and pull a stunt like that on him. He told the kid "when you take your queen off the board, it is too big an advantage for you. It gives your king more room to move around." The kid is laughing now, so Lasker says, "OK, I will remove my queen from the board, and then there is no way you can win." So he does, and demolishes the kid rather quickly. He got up, patted the kid on the shoulder and said "see how much easier it is when you don't have that queen thing on the board getting in your way." Then he walked off saying nothing else. When he looked back, the kid had a queen in his hand just staring at it.
gts
I love those stories! I know then tend to get exaggerated with time but this one of course could easily happen. I wonder if the kid ever figured out who he was playing?
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
BubbaTough wrote:I suspect most masters would reject ...Rb8 because it seems likely white can get 2 connected passed pawns and advance them quickly for a win. Thus, they would play something active (Rd2) even in bullet chess. It would take a lot of work for a human to confirm or deny whether this is really the best move. The computer is going to be much better than humans at working out the details.
Rook endgames are probably the area human intuition most often is superior to computer calculation (other than perhaps locked or fortress positions) because human heuristics about what is likely to win and what is likely to draw are pretty good, and most top programs lack good approximations of these heuristics. Nevertheless, the ability to work out the details is so important and so useful, I suspect even in rook endgames computers are better than humans at most non-postal time controls. Sure, you can cherry pick certain endgames where humans are better, but generally speaking, its darn likely computers are still better.
On a week a move though, I would pick Kramnik in any rook endgame over a cluster of computers. Somehow, I doubt that hypothesis will be tested.
-Sam
I've been analyzing this position and given Rd2 I cannot say for sure but I think black can hold a draw with active counterplay. In some of the lines I have looked at white promotes but so does black and we get into a queen ending where white is up 1 pawn. It's difficult to tell because there are several interesting ways to proceed, at least for a patzer like myself and I have to check them all out.
I have not even explored Rb8, but if this is a draw with Rd2 then in order to determine if Rd2 is some sort of brilliancy we have to prove that Rb8 loses. Very often it turns out that the flashy move is no better than the mundane move. I don't know if that is the case here or not.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
BubbaTough wrote:I suspect most masters would reject ...Rb8 because it seems likely white can get 2 connected passed pawns and advance them quickly for a win. Thus, they would play something active (Rd2) even in bullet chess. It would take a lot of work for a human to confirm or deny whether this is really the best move. The computer is going to be much better than humans at working out the details.
Rook endgames are probably the area human intuition most often is superior to computer calculation (other than perhaps locked or fortress positions) because human heuristics about what is likely to win and what is likely to draw are pretty good, and most top programs lack good approximations of these heuristics. Nevertheless, the ability to work out the details is so important and so useful, I suspect even in rook endgames computers are better than humans at most non-postal time controls. Sure, you can cherry pick certain endgames where humans are better, but generally speaking, its darn likely computers are still better.
On a week a move though, I would pick Kramnik in any rook endgame over a cluster of computers. Somehow, I doubt that hypothesis will be tested.
-Sam
I've been analyzing this position and given Rd2 I cannot say for sure but I think black can hold a draw with active counterplay. In some of the lines I have looked at white promotes but so does black and we get into a queen ending where white is up 1 pawn. It's difficult to tell because there are several interesting ways to proceed, at least for a patzer like myself and I have to check them all out.
I have not even explored Rb8, but if this is a draw with Rd2 then in order to determine if Rd2 is some sort of brilliancy we have to prove that Rb8 loses. Very often it turns out that the flashy move is no better than the mundane move. I don't know if that is the case here or not.
BubbaTough wrote:I suspect most masters would reject ...Rb8 because it seems likely white can get 2 connected passed pawns and advance them quickly for a win. Thus, they would play something active (Rd2) even in bullet chess. It would take a lot of work for a human to confirm or deny whether this is really the best move. The computer is going to be much better than humans at working out the details.
Rook endgames are probably the area human intuition most often is superior to computer calculation (other than perhaps locked or fortress positions) because human heuristics about what is likely to win and what is likely to draw are pretty good, and most top programs lack good approximations of these heuristics. Nevertheless, the ability to work out the details is so important and so useful, I suspect even in rook endgames computers are better than humans at most non-postal time controls. Sure, you can cherry pick certain endgames where humans are better, but generally speaking, its darn likely computers are still better.
On a week a move though, I would pick Kramnik in any rook endgame over a cluster of computers. Somehow, I doubt that hypothesis will be tested.
-Sam
I've been analyzing this position and given Rd2 I cannot say for sure but I think black can hold a draw with active counterplay. In some of the lines I have looked at white promotes but so does black and we get into a queen ending where white is up 1 pawn. It's difficult to tell because there are several interesting ways to proceed, at least for a patzer like myself and I have to check them all out.
I have not even explored Rb8, but if this is a draw with Rd2 then in order to determine if Rd2 is some sort of brilliancy we have to prove that Rb8 loses. Very often it turns out that the flashy move is no better than the mundane move. I don't know if that is the case here or not.
Nowadays, Rd2 would be a normal move, and it is only a brilliance in its historic context. We are talking about Akiba Rubinstein, who was not "just good" at endgames. He invented them He brought the creativity into this phase of the game, and was ahead of his time. This move epitomizes what a player should look for in this type of endgames.
If the people wants to improve endgame play, study Rubinstein's games.
[D]8/pp2kppp/4p3/8/1Pr5/P3PP2/3K1P1P/R7 w - - am Rc1
Cohn - Rubinstein
Here, white played Rc1, which looks like an innocent move that loses after Rxc1 Kxf1 Kf6!! wins!
[D]8/pp2kppp/4p3/8/1P6/P3PP2/5P1P/2K5 b - - 0 1 bm Kf6
BubbaTough wrote:I suspect most masters would reject ...Rb8 because it seems likely white can get 2 connected passed pawns and advance them quickly for a win. Thus, they would play something active (Rd2) even in bullet chess. It would take a lot of work for a human to confirm or deny whether this is really the best move. The computer is going to be much better than humans at working out the details.
Rook endgames are probably the area human intuition most often is superior to computer calculation (other than perhaps locked or fortress positions) because human heuristics about what is likely to win and what is likely to draw are pretty good, and most top programs lack good approximations of these heuristics. Nevertheless, the ability to work out the details is so important and so useful, I suspect even in rook endgames computers are better than humans at most non-postal time controls. Sure, you can cherry pick certain endgames where humans are better, but generally speaking, its darn likely computers are still better.
On a week a move though, I would pick Kramnik in any rook endgame over a cluster of computers. Somehow, I doubt that hypothesis will be tested.
-Sam
I've been analyzing this position and given Rd2 I cannot say for sure but I think black can hold a draw with active counterplay. In some of the lines I have looked at white promotes but so does black and we get into a queen ending where white is up 1 pawn. It's difficult to tell because there are several interesting ways to proceed, at least for a patzer like myself and I have to check them all out.
I have not even explored Rb8, but if this is a draw with Rd2 then in order to determine if Rd2 is some sort of brilliancy we have to prove that Rb8 loses. Very often it turns out that the flashy move is no better than the mundane move. I don't know if that is the case here or not.
And what does Larry say
Larry doesn't know anything
Seriously, I have not asked him about this position. I like to figure things out for myself when I can. If he see's this he will probably respond.
I have looked at Rb8 and it's my considered (patzer) opinion that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with Rb8 and in fact it's easier to play. Rd2 appears superficially to be more exciting and aggressive but you get the very same type of position with Rb8 in almost every line I have looked at except that it's easier to not go wrong. Black still ends up pushing the center pawns and his rook still ends up being down there sooner or later. Maybe I will change my mind after looking at this some more but this is what I am seeing now.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
BubbaTough wrote:I suspect most masters would reject ...Rb8 because it seems likely white can get 2 connected passed pawns and advance them quickly for a win. Thus, they would play something active (Rd2) even in bullet chess.
Active rook against now 3 passed connected pawns? (was 2). Does not look good. But the question is still valid: Why a GM would prefer Rd2? Why Rubinstein? Why Tarrash didnt won?
BubbaTough wrote:
It would take a lot of work for a human to confirm or deny whether this is really the best move. The computer is going to be much better than humans at working out the details.
It will also take a lot for a computer to confirm what is best. In the position FinalGen needs 110 Tb space and 20.000+ hours in a core 2 notebook.
Playing the alternatives (Rd2 Rb8) with several engines shows this position is 1-0?
