From: jhc@m2lll.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: F-S II Game 8 - 33.Qc3 -
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:21:40 GMT

In article <15124@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:

>So no new category of move is required - very few moves are so difficult to
>find that only a computer can find them, and I doubt that 33.Qc3 is one of
>them.  The real question is whether a Kasparov, Karpov, Short or Timman would
>have seen or allowed the move, and I suppose there's no answer to that.

Well, Zarkov finds it in the middle of a mere 4 ply search, so one has
to look less than 2 moves deep.  In fact, Zarkov finds it at blitz
speed (60 moves in 5 minutes), or at about 1800 USCF.  It seems that
the use of Deep Thought misleads people into thinking that this is an
inhumanly complicated position.

I think Spassky was not misled.  He did not see Fischer's tactical
resources.  When they became clear, he knew that he had lost the game.
No, he didn't find the best move, because he knew that he was beaten.
He did not have the energy to fight further.  I suppose that Qc3 may
seem counterintuitive, but, to me at least, it is trivial compared to
things like Spassky's exchange sacrifice in game 4.  And there have
been a variety of combinations and positional improvements that I don't
really understand after an hour of study.  This is beginner's stuff.
Look at it.  33.Qc3 Rxc3 and 34.Rxc3 threatens mate; the played 33.Rc6
threatens to capture a pawn after exchanging Queen for Knight.

As for Short, Timman, etc.  Well, they are human.  We all have the
capacity to blunder, especially as we get worn down.  Of course, you
provide no justification for your claim that their performance is "the
real question."  It's already obvious to me that Master-level players
immediately rejected the erroneous 33.Rc3 that was originally posted,
while I spend a couple of hour analyzing it, trying to find what Zarkov
was missing.  The answer is that chess Masters who have not been ground
down by the tournament can see quickly that Qc3 is a reasonable move.

Oh, yes, I think Byrne/DTII are very misleading on Spassky's chances
after 33.Qc3.  No one has posted any followup that demonstrates those
"winning chances," but nor I nor Zarkov can find them.  Perhaps they
assumed Rxc3 instead of Nxc1.

>And it's still unclear whether White is better after 33.Qc3 - it's definitely a
>"computer type of position"!

See my earlier posting ("by Zarkov and me").  It is clear that White is
better after 33.Qc3 than after 33.Rc3, 33.Rc6, or 33.Rxc7.  In fact,
it's very straightforward, after 33.Qc3, White has lost the exchange
but has a passed pawn in return.  After other moves, White has lost his
Queen.  Do you have other suggestions for 33?  Moves such as Qe1 permit
Rxc1+, which forces the exchange of Q for N.  Or take Qe2 Rxc1+ 34.Ka2
Nd4.  Now White has lost the exchange AND a pawn.  Similar with Qb4.

There is nothing particularly specific to computers about this
position.  It's not even a complicated position.  There are positions
that break my brain and stall my computers, but this is not even
close.

--Jim

P.S.  Forgive me if I am going overboard in my refutation.  I have been
looking at this game all day.