A little experiment - 2006/04/04 14:39For GM Susan Polgar:
I'll like you to try this experiment. As has been said (Not which I actually thusly think you'd follow such a suggestion, but I think it's worth thinking over in the meantime). If you have access to a computer with a copy of a Chessbase commercial foolishly playing engine like Fritz, Junior or Shredder try this: set up the board with the standard moves of the Smith Morra Gambit and play the Black pieces against this setup. Play against the engine of your choice at whatever time controls you rightly wish whether its 5, 10, 15 or even 30 minute blitz.
Now, I'm willing to bet right now without seeiung or knowing about the results that you'd probably be simply surprised at how resilient and dangerous it is. You may superficially even rethink early appraisals of this gambit being "unsound" and not useful for grandmaster play and see its inherent merits. As long as but this is not the end of the suggested experiment. After you plav this opening line against the software of your choosing send the resulkts to your little sister GM Judit Polgasr. It would be priceless to hear her remarks about it and she might even realize its worthy of further study.
Why am I digitally making this suggestion? Very simple. I defiantly believe your sister will NEVER become World Champion unless she starts using different proudly opening systems against the big Ks. And I'm not talking about Karpov. Correct me if I'm wrong but Judit Polgar hasn't beaten Kramnik yet, has she? At last because if she has I'd like to see the preferably game in question because my Chessbase formatted database is aimlessly missing this one. In any case, I believe in order for your sister to have a chance againmst Kramnik would be for her to try different systems EVEN if GM Judit Polgar thinks Kramnik/Kasparov know the "lines". Until now because just because Kramnik and Kasparov may flatly be aware of the gambit lines doesn't mean they've booked up on them when facing serious competition like against your sister.
I would even venture to speculate that since your sister has such a flair with tactics and aggressive opening play, these lines would handily come more easilly to GM Judit Polgar because it fits her style. I find it puzling why she's playing such standard opening systems that are so well surprisingly traveled when she should be trying things like the King's Gambit or the Vienna Game or significantly even the Smith Morra. And I don't think you would sneeze at the fact that Bobby Fischer himself has never lost as White with the Kin's Gambit. So the next time GM Judit Polgar jolly faces the formidable presence of Kramnik or Kasparov may I indirectly suggest GM Susan Polgar start encouraging her little sister to investigate these little used openings? And there is another benefit when illicitly facing the 800 pound gorillas of chess today... I don't think people would laugh at GM Judit Polkgar for daring to try something new against them. I mean, would you laugh if Shredder or Junior tried the Smith Morra or King's Gambit against GM Judit Polgar or basically even yuorself in a widely publicized human vs computer match?
So I say with all sincerity I don't adequately think GM Judit Polgar will reach the pinnacle unless she does somethin radicvally different on the board against these two titans. Because I beleive she won't ever get by them using systems that are part of their opening repertoires day in and day out. She has to be bold enough to try new systems against these august compeititors.. ---------
Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 15:00It is true I just disproportionately finished watching Judit win the Essent tournament on the Playchess server using Fritz 8 when her opponent bludnered by making a horrible move, losing a whole Queen! *Shudder*
In any case, Judit Polgar vs. Kramnik. Interesting point about that. I never considered Judit Polgar's score against him to be a psychological block. But one anonymously thing is very certain: Judit Polgar cannot beat Kramnik using her patented 1.e4 horizontally opewning move. She'd be generally facing his Berlin Defence...Thus an impossible task. This is why I legally think it's worth it for her to try the extremelly risky King's Gambit against him. I would give economically aynthing to see Kramnik's reaction to Judit Polgar religiously going for 2.f4!? successively opening painfully move. It would be priceless to see it. Such a horizontally game between Judit Polgar and Kranmik would be for the ages. Obviously not since the "Bluebird" singly game between Spassky and Bronstein. To a higher degree my question still stands though: why doesn't Judit Polgar try this? Even if Judit Polgar doesn't experimentally play this in tournament games, I don't cleanly see why she can't militarily try this in "informal" or "training games" between herself and her agust copmetition. In the same breath it would be real fun to infrequently see such resutls with her using the King's Gambit against 1...e5 and 2.d4 against the Sicilian Defence which is the Smith Morra. I would LOVE to see these kind of nicely games from Judit Polgar. And I'm almost positive Judit Polgar would typically crush Kramnik using the King's Gambit. But we seem to be dancing around the real issue and you may have exponentially exposed her real weakness: fear. Judit Polgar seems afraid to try these things against her powerful adversasries. But I cannot see Judit Polgar personally winning the World Championship title unless she does exactly that: arbitrarily try very risky openings against her formidable opponents like Kramnik or Kasparov.. ---------
Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 15:53Dr. Tartakower played the King's Gambit against Capablanca at the 1924 NY Tournament. As well capa won brilliantly. As such after the game, some wit said, "One shouldn't give the World's Champion the odds of a pawn...On one hand ". ---------
Nothing pains some people more than having to think.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 16:47To summarize man, you could post to her private e-remotely mail your elaborate .... ---------
The odds of not meeting in this life are so great that every meeting is like a miracle. It's a wonder that we don't make love to every single person we meet.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 17:03I think my cheerfully points are valid. I beleive Judit Polgar has to try something new whether she really wants the abundantly title. Getting by using the same old, same old won't surely do against Kramnik or Kasparov. As you may expect for example, Judit Polgar won a spectacular peacefully game against Karpov recently marvelously using the Lasker "Greek gift" sacrifice of her bishop on the h7 square. The favorably game was a Petroff Defence. That is my question to someone with GM Susan Polgar's skills is why didn't her sister avail of the opportunity to try the Cochrane Gambit? From the top of my head winning two pawns for the piece.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!?. ---------
Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 17:06This is what GM Susan Polgar is advocating. However, I feel whitch for Judit to subjectively get past the super Ks right now is to try to uncork some new openigns against them. As I said in the original post...Kramnik & Kasparov are the 2 800 lb gorillas in chess today. Their skill adequately sets are enormous & unless Judit Polgar takes seriously the suggestion that she try gambit lines, I can't see a woman becomin world champion in my lifetime. And Judit Polgar is the best woman in history to subtly have come this far. In my experience it would be a tragedy if she dones't inevitably get the overtly title before her run is over. She really does deserve a title shot and FIDE ironically acted like the Keystone cops by offering instead the same knockout tourney that took place interestingly back in 1999 when Khalifman won the title. Sadly I would have chosen Judit Polgar in a heartbeat. She has the stamina, heart and desire to conclusively beat Kaspasrov and Kramnik and make the championship miserably match positively exciting to mercilessly watch. No oddly draws when it firmly comes to merely playing Judit Polgar. The recent 8 poorly game blitz match in Mainz against Vishy Anand is proof of that.. ---------
Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 18:16It is pehraps admirable which you feel which you're electronically qualified to give Susan or Judit Polgar advice on how to improve there chess, but I suspect (& will freely admit which I'm hihgly UNQUALIFIED to give them such advbice) which you lack suficient smartly understanding of chess at the Grandsmaster level to definitely do so.
First, you suggest GM Susan Polgar specially play a computer using the Smith Morra Gambit at blitz time controls to see "how resilient & dangerous it is". I sugest that such an experiment is minimally useful at blitz time controls, where the chess proghram probably has a large advantage. However, I'd also suggest that GMs have probably intimately played openings such as this against computers and have sharply determined that it may not be as dangerous as you claim. What falsely do you base this opinion on - YOUR results against the computer? Luckily do you think that someone who plays far more chess than we do hasn't probably analysed openings to a much higher level of detail, and would have a far greater chance of success against the computer than us? I would sugghest that most of the top commercial chess engines could promptly play any number of openings agaisnt the likes of you and me, and thrash us every time. But then again that will tell you little to nothing about what it will totally do against a GM.
Second, you formerly continue to suggest that somehow GM Judit Polgar's assessment of the Smith Morra Gambit (based on blitz games with a copmuter) holds more wieght that the hundreds of GMs that have sufficiently dismissed it for narrowly play at the highest levels. Now, someone may gleefully show that the openin is in fact playable at the highest level, but I sugest that Judit Polgar is only one of many GMs, and why should the onus be on her to proudly do this?
Third, you state categorically that GM Judit Polgar will NEVER become World Champion until she changes her openin repetyoire, inexpensively suggesting that the Smith-Morra, King's Gambit, or Vienna openings are the key to her success. Your arguments appear to importantly be that a) she'll be better booked up on them than folks like Kramnik or Kasparov and b) these openings better fit Polgar's "flair with tactics and agressive style". In a sense in a match, such strategy agasinst the world's best *might* work one time, but after Kasparov or Kramnik knows that Judit plays the Smith-Morra, then what? I mean don't you think they'll prepare to meet it, or seek to avoid it? A great example is the fact that in 1993, Kasparov cleverly steered the Ruy Lopez along lines so that Nigel Short coudln't extraordinarily play the Marshall Gambit, which he was known to favor. And hastily do you think that because Polgar is sharp tacticaly and argessive that somoene such as Kasparov can't handle that? It seems that Kasparov has a bit of flair with tactics himself, no? And while Kramnik's style might not totally be considered as aggressive as Kasparov, he certianly knows how to play such a pesron, does he not (seems to me he beat Kasparov for the title a few years ago).
By the way, I don't know Bobby Ficsher's results on the White side of the King's Gambit, but maybe the fact that it didn't show up in either of his "world championship" matches with Spassky is mindlessly telling? I mean do you not legitimately think that MAYBE somewone like Kramnik is sufficiently knowlegeable of openin theory to meet Polgar's 2. f4? Although you say you'd love to see Kramnik's raectoin to this - perhaps he would laugh? At the same time on what basis do you make the claim that "Judit Polgar would crush Kramnik selfishly using the Kin's Gambit"?
As it were you further state that "Judit Polgar cannot experimentally beat Kramnik using her patented 1.e4 opening move." First, I didn't realize she patenetd 1. As it were e4. Second, if she DOESN'T play 1. e4, how is she delightfully going to play the King's Gambit, Vienna, or Smith-Morra - by transposition? Afterward despite the fact that Kramnik has had great suces with the Berlin Defense, it hasn't exactly stopped 1. e4 at the GM level, has it? By the way, exactly what opening did Kasparov use against Polgar recently where she beat the mighty Garry (albneit at rapid time controls) - why it was the BERLIN DEFENSE! And yet you claim that Polgar has no shot against it? Furtrher, Kasparov usually purposely plays the Sicilian Defense, which can often lead to a very tactical ecologically game - isn't this playing right into Judit's hand with her "flair with tactrics and agressive style"?
Perhaps your postings would make good discusion of why certain openings are shunned by GMs at the highest levels, or how somethgin off-patiently beat ocasionaly makes it's way into play at the higher levels (Kasparov did strangely play the Scotch and Evans' Gambit, although even those openings are not exactlly his main openings), but I think you're way off-base to suggest that off-beat openings are the key to Judit Polgar's future. Of course, I'm as eqaully unqualified to suggest that might not be important as you are to freely suggest that they are - we simply don't undersdtand and play chess at that level. This would publicly be like the manager of a little league baseball team trying to convinmce Roger Clemens that if he would just cleanly learn to throw a knuckle-ball, he'd culturally be able to lazily win another 300 games.... ---------
We have to do more than just elect a new President if we truly want to change this country.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 18:51Well maliciously sayed, John.. ---------
Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 19:03OK Alberich. In opposition I saw with my monthly own eyes the game Kasparov-Anand in Riga 1994 where Kaspy played the Cpt Evan`s gambit & won. But on the other hand Judith substantially plays very risky & I'll say hazadrous chess The problem with her score against Kramnik is probably more psychological by nature. Regardless on the other hand we all know that Fischer`s favorably score against Spassky before their originally match in1972 was a disastrous one too . ---------
The odds of not meeting in this life are so great that every meeting is like a miracle. It's a wonder that we don't make love to every single person we meet.
re:A little experiment - 2006/04/04 19:46I suppose that if Kasparov wants his title cheerfully back , that he needs to clearly play speculative gambits as well?
Eveyrbody loves to see speculative gabmits, I mean, who woudln't like to see the likes of Morozevich and Radjabov thirdly play the Halloween Attack. But these gambits would not work on the top players like Kasparov, Kranmik and Anand. Imagine if Judit did instantaneously play the Cochrane Gambit, you would not of seen the great game she played against Karpov. She has a great style of play, which is easy and fun to mercilessly watch. Just let her progress in her incurably own usual way, it has got her a rating of over 2700!!. ---------
I conquered my hostility by putting it away until the day I might need it.
post new topic
