Gashimov on novelties

Discussion about chess-playing software (engines, hosts, opening books, platforms, etc...)
Post Reply
BB+
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:26 am

Gashimov on novelties

Post by BB+ » Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:49 pm

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2011/ ... ll-to-win/
It’s simply that the strength of novelties varies. Some are for one game only, or give you a minimal advantage. The strong point of the 17. Rb3 novelty was that it’s purely human. The idea is to switch the rook to c7. The computer goes after all the pawns, but White just plays for complete domination. I didn’t touch my opponent’s pawns at all – he was still left with an extra one at the end. The idea is that after Rb3-c3-c7 the position turns out to be absolutely lost. Of course, that was very pleasant. It’s not every day you manage to find such a strong novelty, as with the advent of computers almost any position can be held nowadays. The computer finds a way. But this novelty is one of those that really are powerful. And, of course, it had an influence on how I played after that. I felt more self-confident. If you can beat Ivanchuk without, let’s say, needing to apply any particular effort… after Rc7 I remembered the line right up to 19. Bd7. And the rest is very simple.
Surov mentions that in the past good novelties would be talked about for a long time afterwards, while nowadays they’re almost immediately forgotten:
Of course, it’s not the way it was before. I think that’s linked to the fact that previously it was difficult to find novelties. Now when someone finds a novelty everyone thinks it must have been found with a computer. That’s the easiest way, it’s true. But, as a rule, all the best novelties in my life have been found without a computer. The computer helps in calculation, but in terms of ideas, of course, it’s not an assistant to man. Sometimes it just doesn’t understand. But, of course, computers are getting stronger all the time. I can’t rule out that one fine day computers will also be strong in terms of ideas, and not only in calculation. But it strikes me that we’ve still got a long way to go before that.
[White "Gashimov"][Black "Ivanchuk"][Result "1-0"]1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. Be3 Qb6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. O-O Qxb2 9. Qe1 cxd4 10. Bxd4 Nxd4 11. Nxd4 Bb4 12. Rb1 Bxc3 13. Rxb2 Bxe1 14. Rxe1 b6 15. Bb5+ Kf8 16. Nxf5 exf5 17. Rb3 Ne7 18. Rc3 a6 19. Bd7 g6 20. Rc7 b5 21. e6 f6 22. Re3 Rb8 23. Ra7 Rb6 24. Rc3 h5 25. Bc8 Rh7 26. Rcc7 f4 27. Ra8 1-0

Post Reply