Judit is clearly the strongest female chess player ever. She was the first to break 2600 and 2700. I could not be more proud of everything she has done.
Will her achievements stand for a long time? Is there any young female players out there right now who has the potential to match or surpass Judit?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Judit is a true Chess Champion with a heart of gold!
Sooner or later, yes. Unfortunately. But her records will be broken only by the inflation of the Elo-points. The value of the future achievements of somebody will never be the same.
The name of Polgar will always mean “The strongest ever”.
More people will weep for the passing of the Polgar sisters than Bobby Fischer.
Mark my words!
Judit is awesome. Like Susan and Sofia.
I think it’s rare that talent like that happens. We should celebrate it.
haha…I’m looking at the 3 polgars and a penguin video…its funny
Mike Magnan
Where is this video?
Every player must be measured by
results against oponents of his/her
own time.
Having said that, “Ever” is too heavy word.
For example remember Vera Menchik,
first Women World champ,way ahead
in game than any women chess player
in her time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Menchik
She has beaten many super strong MALE players too(including dr. Euwe)
And many others became members of
“Menchik club”.
Capablancka barely escaped to become member on one occasion.
Susan, if you studied as hard as you promote chess, you could be over 2700. But other than that, I don’t see and woman hitting 2700. Humpy could hit 2650 however.
After seeing this year’s Corus, I say Hou Yifan.
But time will tell, you never know in which way she will decelop. At least I definitely think she’s got the talent.
…though of course I have to add that this will never change the fact that Judit is not only a legend, but a great person (as far as I can see).
The moves 17-27 were played exceptionally fast, skipping into the endgame, ala Mednis. Polgar must have seen the win, but the dancing kings make me think it was more of a feeling than a though. Very Daring!
Of the current players Humpy and Hou needs special mention. Humpy obviously is second highest rated after Judit and Hou for her potential. She is the fifth strongest player ( fide current list and born 1994). though I would have loved to say Humpy will go ahead of Judit, that doesn’t seem to happen. ( I am an Indian) With age on her side I think Hou will definitely go near Judit or may even surpass her. She is the female player to look for in near and far future.
i think judit needs to play n b more active i kno she has children she can b the best n better ever im sure she will gain some points frm corus i hope to c more of her style aggressiveness she makes me wanna play more study hard goodluck to u n ur family
I am the strongest ever. Judit will be behind me in 24 months max.
“Judit is a true Chess Champion with a heart of gold!”
She was never a real champion, unlike Susan. She chose the life of men, who she could not defeat to the end.
“Judit is a true Chess Champion with a heart of gold!”
Yes, I agrree.
“Where is this video?”
He is making it up, can’t you see?
Hou Yifan is the one… her brilliant fate is sealed and done! 🙂
Here’s a question: What is the highest-category FIDE round-robin ever with two female players?
Looking forward to Judit and Humpy Koneru and/or Hou Yifan in the Corus A this year or next…
In Judit’s endgame today, White missed a chance to resist by the surprising sacrifice 38.h4!? After Black captures and plays …b5-b4-xc3, the position will look like a game of backgammon! Maybe don’t take on c3? Sorry, no time to analyze further as revising a math paper needs priority…
Irina Krush is getting a great education in endgame play—and in recovering one’s confidence. She started 1-4 and 2-5 but now has a real shot at a plus score. Plus she beat Caruana.
OK—with help from L’amico Fritz, I have found a way for Black to win after 38.h4!?—one that harmonizes with how Judit actually played the game.
This does, however, suggest that White had other resources prior to move 38 as well. I’ll advance the opinion, however, that Black is winning after the trade of Rooks, and that Black’s pre-time-control hesitations did not cost anything.
Now the tables are turned: instead of a Polgar placing a problem for commenters to figure out, a commenter has placed a problem for Polgars to figure out :-).
Judit might be the strongest woman chessplayer, but when it comes to being the most beautiful, it’s a 3-way tie with Sofia and Susan 😉
Judit won’t even be able hold a candle to Koneru Humpy in a couple of years.
WOW. She is my chess idol since school. That is when I started to beat the guys.
Where did you guys put Arianne Caoili (Aronian’s girlfriend) in all this?
She is a super talent. How many women do you know in chess who have caused two grandmasters to exchange blows, or who caused one national team at the chess olympiad to ambush and manhandle a grandmaster?
By the way, Susan is the prettiest female chess player alive. Although she is not married to a veterinary doctor, she’s got everything we men seek!
When the top male and female player of the last 15 years is mentioned, I think of only two people: Gary K and Judith P.
Why are you asking us these questions? Is she going to retire or something?
I love this picture of Judit. She is beautiful.
On further review, Adams (White) should have captured 37.fxg5, and then I have not found a way for Black to win. Nor have I found a win earlier. One of my ideas (well beyond Fritz’s search horizon) is to run BK to h5 to force White to play h4 to spend a temporizing move, then run Bk to a4 to support …b5-b4. It is immediately frustrated, however, by the same idea as with 38.h4!?—namely, the sacrifice h4-h5! Then Black’s King is unable to marshal the doubled h-pawns home, and also unable to leave the K-side, so the position is drawn despite evals over 2.30 from Fritz 9.
As if to make me a prophet, Irina Krush acheived her plus score by grinding out a very long endgame win! The position after 55.gxf5 Rxf5+ is known to be winning for Black, checkmate in 41. She did, however, let the win slip by 64…Rg5?, when checking from the side by 65.Ra4+ is known to draw (per the tablebase server maintained by Knowledge For IT + Shredderchess.com at http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en. ). After White’s 65.Kf6 instead she played optimally. In several previous tournaments I’ve noted and remarked on her endgame play, and for aspiring readers of this blog it would be interesting to assess the consciousness-raising role of her involvement in the Kasparov vs. the World endgame.
Ah! I see that almost all of ChessBase’s report on yesterday’s play is a deep analysis of the Adams-Polgar endgame by GM Mihail Marin.
However, there is a gap in his main winning idea for Black. From Move 33, after his 33…b5 34.Kd2 c6″!” 35.a3 c5 36.dxc5 Kxc5 37.Kc1 b4, he does not mention 38.Kb2 for White, only double-swapping on b4 and 40.Kb2. Indeed, the notation “Kb2” occurs nowhere else on the page than this one paragraph.
After 38.Kb2 bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 we have the mirror-image of the idea I’ve been talking about in all my comments here: Black has an outside passed Rook’s pawn, but paradoxically the position is set up so that Black cannot advance it and penetrate (the doubled c2,c3 pawns play the same King-blocking role as the doubled f3,f4 pawns here—that’s why this is so unusual!), and Black cannot run to the other wing either.
Moreover—and this may be the reason the move eluded notice—my Fritz 9 had a wild swing while thinking about these moves. After 38.Kb2(!) bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5, here is a clip of analysis on my single-core laptop thinking at White’s Move 40:
78: Adams,M – Polgar,J, Corus A Wijk aan Zee NED 2008
8/7p/6p1/pk3p2/2p2P2/K1P2P1P/2P5/8 w – – 0 1
Analysis by Fritz 9:
40.Ka2 h6 41.Ka3 g5 42.Kb2 Kc5 43.fxg5 hxg5
-+ (-3.24) Depth: 7/34 00:00:00 22kN
40.Ka2 h6 41.Ka3 Kc6 42.Ka4 Kb6 43.Ka3 Kb5 44.Ka2 Kc5 45.Ka3
-+ (-3.20) Depth: 8/29 00:00:00 37kN
40.Ka2 Kc6 41.Kb2 Kd7 42.Ka3 Kc7 43.Kb2
-+ (-3.20) Depth: 9/40 00:00:00 83kN
40.Ka2 Kc6 41.Kb2 Kd7 42.Ka3 Kc7 43.Ka4
-+ (-3.20) Depth: 10/34 00:00:00 95kN
40.Kb2!
-+ (-3.18) Depth: 10/40 00:00:00 100kN
40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Kb2 Kc7 43.Ka3 Kb6 44.Ka4 Ka6 45.Ka3 Ka7 46.Ka4
-+ (-3.18) Depth: 11/41 00:00:00 132kN
40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Kb2 Kc7 43.Ka3 Kb6 44.Ka4 Ka6 45.Ka3 Ka7 46.Ka4
-+ (-3.07) Depth: 12/43 00:00:00 143kN
40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Kb2 Kc7 43.Ka3 Kb6 44.Ka4 Ka6 45.Ka3 Ka7 46.Ka4
-+ (-3.07) Depth: 13/46 00:00:00 166kN
40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Kb2 Kc7 43.Ka3 Kb6 44.Ka4
-+ (-3.07) Depth: 14/44 00:00:00 213kN
40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Kb2 Kc7 43.Ka3 Kb6 44.Ka4
-+ (-3.07) Depth: 15/44 00:00:00 303kN
40.Kb2!
-+ (-2.78) Depth: 16/45 00:00:00 393kN
40.Kb2!
-+ (-2.50) Depth: 17/41 00:00:00 615kN
40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Ka4 Kb6 43.Ka3
-+ (-2.35) Depth: 17/45 00:00:00 714kN
40.Kb2!
-+ (-2.07) Depth: 18/44 00:00:01 984kN
40.Kb2!
-+ (-1.79) Depth: 18/48 00:00:01 1565kN
40.Kb2!
µ (-1.23) Depth: 18/48 00:00:02 1990kN
40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Ka4 Kb6 43.Ka3
µ (-0.74) Depth: 18/48 00:00:03 2613kN
40.Kb2!
³ (-0.46) Depth: 19/41 00:00:03 3202kN
40.Kb2!
= (-0.18) Depth: 19/41 00:00:05 4710kN
40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Ka4 Kb6 43.Ka3
= (0.00) Depth: 19/41 00:00:07 6513kN
(Regan, State Univ. of NY at Buffalo 27.01.2008)
So at depth 15 Fritz 9 thought Black was the equivalent of over 3 pawns ahead, and only at depth 19 did it see “0.00”. I will try to do some investigation of what is going on here—it may even involve a hash-table glitch of the kind I’ve fruitlessly been trying to get Chessbase’s help on. I had this position by transpose from later in the game, but did not notice Marin’s idea as a try—>perhaps because I only let Fritz 9 run to very high depth for several hours while working on that math paper (to 4am!), by which time the swing may have been averted because my hash table had other contents, or maybe it went offscreen without my noticing. In any event:
() there is definitely a gap in Marin’s analysis;
() endgame analyses that undertake to prove wins or draws, like all other kinds of mathematical research, need independent testing;
() scientifically what needs doing is to see if the big swing in eval reproduces—which will take me awhile as several things are going on in parallel…
Yes it reproduces, from a “cold start” with 1024MB hash on my single-core Pentium-M WinXP laptop with 2GB RAM. The clip from Deep Fritz 10 below is pretty definitive.
HIARCS 11.2SP and Shredder 9.1 and Crafty 20.14 also give evals over -2.90 advantage to Black. So I think this is *not* a hash-table error, but just a case of taking a long time to realize that the extra outside passer is not decisive here—indeed, DF10 has been the quickest to realize this so far. (Mind you, its “0.00” does not prove a cold draw—later in this same endgame I have a case where both sides Queen and Fritz 9 says “0.00” but I think Black still has chances.)
Only Rybka 2.2n2 among major engines on this machine gives an eval reflecting only the material, -0.92 from the get-go. Rybka 2.3.2a and Fruit 2.1 give just over -2.00 edge to Black. All this is with 1024MB or 512MB hash, immediately after loading the engine and selecting “infinite analysis” in the position after 38.Kb2 played.
By the way, in my own endgame analyses I use +4.00–5.00 as my benchmark for “reasonable proof of winning advantage.” Over 5.00 I always trust, toward 4.00 I require some thought from my brain, and less than 4.00 I never trust. However, in some lines where both sides Queen here I know Black is winning but it takes real long to get the eval to go over -3.00 edge to Black. So I myself was propagating backwards evals of about “-3.00” to see how far back winning lines go—and I wouldn’t have seen this option while Fritz was giving it “-3.27” unless I specially hiked up my brain! Thus I surmise this happened to Mr. Marin, specifically because after 48…Kxf4 “zugzwang”, White’s alternatives to 39.Kd3 give -3.07, until at high depth that becomes -3.41, and the “-3.27” from 38.Kb2 may have been camouflaged.
Incidentally, 38.axb4 axb4 39.Kb2 does lose after 39…bxc3+ because BK can penetrate via b4 as well as d4. Whereas in 38.Kb2 the analogous line still has a White pawn at a3. I haven’t killed the play in 38.Kb2 bxc3+ to a stone dead draw, but I don’t see any idea in the rest of Marin’s article to beat it.
—Ken Regan
78: Adams,M – Polgar,J, Corus A Wijk aan Zee NED 2008
8/7p/6p1/p1k2p2/1pp2P2/P1P2P1P/1KP5/8 b – – 0 1
Analysis by Deep Fritz 10:
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 h6 40.Ka4 Kb6 41.Ka3 Kb5 42.Ka2 Kc5 43.Ka3
-+ (-3.39) Depth: 9/17 00:00:00 18kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 h6 40.Kb2 Kb6 41.Ka2 a4 42.Ka3 Kb5 43.Kb2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 10/17 00:00:00 38kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb6 42.Kb2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 11/17 00:00:00 79kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb6 42.Kb2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 12/19 00:00:00 148kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb6 42.Kb2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 13/21 00:00:00 275kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb6 42.Kb2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 14/25 00:00:00 542kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb6 42.Kb2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 15/24 00:00:01 957kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb6 42.Kb2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 16/23 00:00:02 1731kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb6 42.Ka2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 17/28 00:00:04 3399kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb6 42.Ka2
-+ (-3.27) Depth: 18/31 00:00:07 5917kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.h4 Kc6 41.Ka2 Kb6 42.Kb2 a4 43.Ka3
-+ (-3.26) Depth: 19/31 00:00:12 10195kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3
-+ (-2.98) Depth: 20/31 00:00:17 15612kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.h4 Kc6 41.Kb2 Kb6 42.Ka3
-+ (-1.87) Depth: 20/46 00:00:20 18170kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Ka4 Ka6 43.Ka3
-+ (-1.86) Depth: 21/37 00:00:29 27533kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Ka4 Ka6 43.Ka3
-+ (-1.75) Depth: 22/41 00:00:41 39009kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Kb2 Kc6 41.Ka3 Kb7 42.Ka4 Ka6 43.Ka3
-+ (-1.75) Depth: 23/43 00:00:57 55393kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.h4 Kc6 41.Ka4 Kb6 42.Ka3 Ka6 43.Kb2
-+ (-1.74) Depth: 24/43 00:01:19 77133kN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3
-+ (-1.46) Depth: 25/43 00:01:50 110mN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Ka2 Kc6 41.Kb2 Kb6 42.Ka3 Ka6 43.Ka4 h6 44.h4 Kb6 45.Ka3
³ (-0.53) Depth: 25/49 00:01:51 111mN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kb5 40.Ka2 Kc6 41.Kb2 Kb6 42.Ka3 Ka6 43.Ka4 h6 44.h4 Kb6 45.Ka3
³ (-0.53) Depth: 26/51 00:02:46 171mN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3
= (-0.25) Depth: 27/49 00:03:27 214mN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3
= (-0.25) Depth: 27/63 00:03:51 238mN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kc6 40.Ka2 Kc7 41.Kb1 a4 42.Ka2 Kb6 43.Ka3
= (0.00) Depth: 28/58 00:05:11 325mN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kc6 40.Ka2 Kc7 41.Kb1 a4 42.Ka2 Kb6 43.Ka3
= (0.00) Depth: 29/56 00:09:03 583mN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kc6 40.Ka2 Kc7 41.Kb1 a4 42.Ka2 Kb6 43.Ka3
= (0.00) Depth: 30/62 00:10:43 704mN
38…bxa3+ 39.Kxa3 Kc6 40.Ka2 Kc7 41.Kb1 a4 42.Ka2 Kb6 43.Ka3
= (0.00) Depth: 31/58 00:14:14 981mN
(Regan, State Univ. of NY at Buffalo 27.01.2008)
Chesspro.ru has this analysis by Vladimir Barsky, the bulk of which observes that 37.fxg5! would have held. I can say at a glance it’s right since he has the careful 43.Ke1(!) keeping opposition of Kings on the same file, something I’ve noticed as generally important. Oh, in that line he also has 47.Kb2″!” in a position that is different from but close to Marin’s: 37.fxg5! f4 38.Kf2 Kf5 39.Kg2(!) Kxg5 40.Kf2 b5 41.a3 Kf5 42.Ke2 Ke6 43.Ke1(!) Kd5 44.Kd2 c5 45.dxc5 Kxc5 46.Kc1 b4 47.Kb2! I had exactly the same line, and my analysis stopped with that move.
Amusingly and relevantly, he closes with the challenge: “Power up your Fritz and Rybka and refute me!” So it is nowadays, but there’s still room for skilled human “whispering” to the engines what to do…
Thanks Ken! It is going to take me a while to work my way through this. May I humbly suggest that posting in this forum doesn’t disseminate your info to an audience that can appreciate it? Perhaps a computer-chess bulletin board? Maybe you’ve already done that plus sent the info off to chessbase too, in which case, ignore me. 🙂
Drew
Thanks Drew! I did indeed e-mail to ChessBase + Susan + Mig right after my “yes it reproduces” post, and also to Dennis Monokroussos of The Chess Mind blog, who is doing his own analysis of the game. No ack. yet from ChessBase—they may have heard from many other readers besides—and I surmise they’re giving GM Marin time to look into this.
I went over Susan’s own http://www.ChessDiscussion.com forum and considered starting an item (I replied to a nice one by Nick Pilafov), but right now I thought that might be “making too many moves in a row.” The angles of “Power up your Brain and refute Fritz!” and “GM deceived by engines?” won’t go away, but let’s wait to hear what might have happened first.