| |
Main
Date: 15 Aug 2008 10:58:34
From: John Salerno
Subject: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
I mean, I know when a move is obviously terrible, liking exposing your queen
to capture unintentionally or something similar, but is there an actual
method used to determine which moves get the !, !!, ?, ?? designations?
I've seen some moves that seemed to be ideal in a given situation, but it
didn't get the ! mark, so what does it take to label a move as good or bad
enough to get these? Something tells me that there might be more objective
rules for this, rather than just if a move *seems* to be good or bad.
Thanks!
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 08:42:55
From:
Subject: Re: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
On Aug 15, 10:58=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I mean, I know when a move is obviously terrible, liking exposing your qu=
een
> to capture unintentionally or something similar, but is there an actual
> method used to determine which =A0moves get the !, !!, ?, ?? designations=
?
> I've seen some moves that seemed to be ideal in a given situation, but it
> didn't get the ! mark, so what does it take to label a move as good or ba=
d
> enough to get these? Something tells me that there might be more objectiv=
e
> rules for this, rather than just if a move *seems* to be good or bad.
>
> Thanks!
It is something of a science, something of an art. And you should
not take such punctuation on faith! Many a "!" should have been a "?",
and vice versa.
Basically, "??" should be used for a blunder, a mistake serious
enough to lose the game if responded to correctly. The refutation may
be obvious and quick, as when a guy allows a forced mate in two. Or it
may take some time, e.g. a less-than-obvious error in an endgame that
eventually allows the opponent to capture a key pawn and queen one of
his own.
"!!" should be used for a brilliant move, one difficult to find that
has a major effect on the game, e.g. forcing a win or allowing a
successful defense when any other move would fail. Usually "!!" gets
appended to flashy sacrificial moves, but sometimes a seemingly
innocuous, deeply subtle move merits "!!" too.
"!" and "?" are a bit harder to define, but basically, when used
properly, they indicate a move that leads to some demonstrable
advantage or disadvantage, though not enough to win or lose the
game.
Ideally, when a writer uses these in presenting a game, he should
give supporting analysis. He should be able to say "This move is good/
bad because ..." and then justify it in terms of actual variations
(e.g. "This allows 22.Bxh7+! Kxh7 23.Qh5+ forcing mate in six moves"),
or in terms of established chess principles (e.g. "This seriously
weakens the kingside pawn structure").
More vague are "!?" and "?!". The former is usually defined as "an
interesting move," the latter as "a dubious move," but quite often it
means the annotator feels he should say something but is too lazy to
work it out in detail. A legitimate use of "!?" is with opening
novelties, where a new move looks promising but it is impossible to
work out its objective value in detail. Often it takes years before
anything like a final verdict is reached, which sometimes is quite
different from the initial reaction.
Today, computer-assisted analysis has made it possible to be more
objective with these annotation symbols. A lot of old judgements have
been overturned. For example, in the Anderssen-Kieseritzky "Immortal
Game" (1851) many annotators from Lasker to Keene have lavished praise
on 18.Bd6, some giving it two or even three exclamation marks. In
fact, it merits "??", since against best play it would have lost the
game.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 09:39:54
From: Andrew B.
Subject: Re: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
On 16 Aug, 19:55, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 16, 11:35=A0am, "Andrew B." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Has Bd6 been convincingly shown to lose? The (few) things I've read
> > simply say that it turns the game from won to unclear.
>
> =A0 As far as I have read, and also in all computer-assisted analysis
> I've done on my own, after 18.Bd6? Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Qb2! wins in all
> variations, though I am open to correction if you have contradictory
> analysis.
See the comments at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=3D1018910&=
kpage=3D7
(Sep-05-07: Honza Cervenka) - no idea how accurate they are.
> > Incidentally, I think you could have "??" against a non-losing move:
> > e.g. if you had WKb3 + WQe2 against BKc1, then Qc1+, Qc2+ and Ka2
> > would each merit a "??".
>
> =A0 I don't understand. 1.Qc2 would be mate in that position, 1.Qc1 is
> impossible, and 1.Ka2 would only delay mate, not let slip the win. I
> would give "??" to 1.Qd1+, though
Sorry, I meant Qd1+/Qd2+ (as you guessed). I think all of these (clear
blunders which throw away an easy win) merit a "??".
Actually, even a clear blunder which doesn't change the theoretical
result could merit a "??" - suppose it was WKb3, WQe2, WNh6, WNg8 v
BKc1, BPh7 - if I played Qd1+ here, it'd still be worth a "??" even if
this is a theoretical win, since I'd never manage to find it... in
other words, I think it's reasonable to have subjective annotations,
as well as objective ones.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 12:00:07
From:
Subject: Re: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
On Aug 16, 2:55=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 16, 11:35=A0am, "Andrew B." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Aug, 17:56, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 15, 12:23=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
> > > > For example, in the Anderssen-Kieseritzky "Immortal
> > > > Game" (1851) many annotators from Lasker to Keene have lavished pra=
ise
> > > > on 18.Bd6, some giving it two or even three exclamation marks. In
> > > > fact, it merits "??", since against best play it would have lost th=
e
> > > > game.
>
> > > > Funny, I was just reading about this game on Wikipedia. Is it safe =
to say
> > > > that the move was !! then, but ?? now?
>
> > > =A0 No, the move was and is "??" for all time. It's just that many
> > > people have *_thought_* it was "!!", and the proof that it was "??"
> > > was not simple to demonstrate.
>
> > So possibly in the distant future, some current games will be
> > annotated 1. e4?? e6?? 2. d4? d5! ...
>
> =A0 I suppose they might be, if it's proven that 1.e4, and 1...e6 in
> reply, are theoretically losing moves. Julius Breyer (who wrote "After
> 1.e4 White's game is in its last throes!") would be smiling in his
> grave.
>
> > Has Bd6 been convincingly shown to lose? The (few) things I've read
> > simply say that it turns the game from won to unclear.
>
> =A0 As far as I have read, and also in all computer-assisted analysis
> I've done on my own, after 18.Bd6? Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Qb2! wins in all
> variations, though I am open to correction if you have contradictory
> analysis.
>
> > Incidentally, I think you could have "??" against a non-losing move:
> > e.g. if you had WKb3 + WQe2 against BKc1, then Qc1+, Qc2+ and Ka2
> > would each merit a "??".
>
> =A0 I don't understand. 1.Qc2 would be mate in that position, 1.Qc1 is
> impossible, and 1.Ka2 would only delay mate, not let slip the win. I
> would give "??" to 1.Qd1+.
Whoops, 1.Ka2 would be stalemate, so we should at least give that a
single question mark. Did you mean Qd1+ and Qd2+ instead of Qc1 and
Qc2?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 11:55:33
From:
Subject: Re: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
On Aug 16, 11:35=A0am, "Andrew B." <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 15 Aug, 17:56, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Aug 15, 12:23=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > For example, in the Anderssen-Kieseritzky "Immortal
> > > Game" (1851) many annotators from Lasker to Keene have lavished prais=
e
> > > on 18.Bd6, some giving it two or even three exclamation marks. In
> > > fact, it merits "??", since against best play it would have lost the
> > > game.
>
> > > Funny, I was just reading about this game on Wikipedia. Is it safe to=
say
> > > that the move was !! then, but ?? now?
>
> > =A0 No, the move was and is "??" for all time. It's just that many
> > people have *_thought_* it was "!!", and the proof that it was "??"
> > was not simple to demonstrate.
>
> So possibly in the distant future, some current games will be
> annotated 1. e4?? e6?? 2. d4? d5! ...
I suppose they might be, if it's proven that 1.e4, and 1...e6 in
reply, are theoretically losing moves. Julius Breyer (who wrote "After
1.e4 White's game is in its last throes!") would be smiling in his
grave.
> Has Bd6 been convincingly shown to lose? The (few) things I've read
> simply say that it turns the game from won to unclear.
As far as I have read, and also in all computer-assisted analysis
I've done on my own, after 18.Bd6? Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Qb2! wins in all
variations, though I am open to correction if you have contradictory
analysis.
> Incidentally, I think you could have "??" against a non-losing move:
> e.g. if you had WKb3 + WQe2 against BKc1, then Qc1+, Qc2+ and Ka2
> would each merit a "??".
I don't understand. 1.Qc2 would be mate in that position, 1.Qc1 is
impossible, and 1.Ka2 would only delay mate, not let slip the win. I
would give "??" to 1.Qd1+, though.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 08:35:32
From: Andrew B.
Subject: Re: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
On 15 Aug, 17:56, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:23=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For example, in the Anderssen-Kieseritzky "Immortal
> > Game" (1851) many annotators from Lasker to Keene have lavished praise
> > on 18.Bd6, some giving it two or even three exclamation marks. In
> > fact, it merits "??", since against best play it would have lost the
> > game.
>
> > Funny, I was just reading about this game on Wikipedia. Is it safe to s=
ay
> > that the move was !! then, but ?? now?
>
> =A0 No, the move was and is "??" for all time. It's just that many
> people have *_thought_* it was "!!", and the proof that it was "??"
> was not simple to demonstrate.
So possibly in the distant future, some current games will be
annotated 1. e4?? e6?? 2. d4? d5! ...
Has Bd6 been convincingly shown to lose? The (few) things I've read
simply say that it turns the game from won to unclear.
Incidentally, I think you could have "??" against a non-losing move:
e.g. if you had WKb3 + WQe2 against BKc1, then Qc1+, Qc2+ and Ka2
would each merit a "??".
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 07:16:38
From: SBD
Subject: Re: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
On Aug 15, 11:56 am, [email protected] wrote:
> gold. This is discussed cogently by Lasker in chapter 5 of his Manual
> of Chess, "The Aesthetic Effect in Chess."
Thanks Taylor, I've been researching aesthetics in chess, and had
forgotten this simple resource. And Lasker always had something
interesting to say.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 09:56:59
From:
Subject: Re: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
On Aug 15, 12:23=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> =A0 It is something of a science, something of an art.
>
> Thanks for the breakdown! I guess these labels are added much later then,
> after the game has been completely analyzed?
Usually, yes. They get added when a game is written up in a book or
magazine.
> been overturned. For example, in the Anderssen-Kieseritzky "Immortal
> Game" (1851) many annotators from Lasker to Keene have lavished praise
> on 18.Bd6, some giving it two or even three exclamation marks. In
> fact, it merits "??", since against best play it would have lost the
> game.
>
> Funny, I was just reading about this game on Wikipedia. Is it safe to say
> that the move was !! then, but ?? now?
No, the move was and is "??" for all time. It's just that many
people have *_thought_* it was "!!", and the proof that it was "??"
was not simple to demonstrate. (Though some did see the truth back
then, e.g. Steinitz.)
Writers often have a tendency to "annotate by result," i.e. they
think all the moves of the winner must be good, and fail to see
improvements the loser might have played. And the chess public has
often valued flashy sacrifices, even unsound ones, over sound but
unspectacular play, which is like valuing costume jewelry over real
gold. This is discussed cogently by Lasker in chapter 5 of his Manual
of Chess, "The Aesthetic Effect in Chess."
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 12:23:58
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: How do you determine ! and ? moves?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It is something of a science, something of an art.
Thanks for the breakdown! I guess these labels are added much later then,
after the game has been completely analyzed?
been overturned. For example, in the Anderssen-Kieseritzky "Immortal
Game" (1851) many annotators from Lasker to Keene have lavished praise
on 18.Bd6, some giving it two or even three exclamation marks. In
fact, it merits "??", since against best play it would have lost the
game.
Funny, I was just reading about this game on Wikipedia. Is it safe to say
that the move was !! then, but ?? now?
|
|
