Author: blass uri
Date: 10:56:41 07/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2000 at 13:43:46, Alvaro Polo wrote: >On July 15, 2000 at 13:40:04, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 15, 2000 at 13:23:14, Alvaro Polo wrote: >> >>>On July 15, 2000 at 13:00:17, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On July 15, 2000 at 12:51:03, Alvaro Polo wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 15, 2000 at 12:08:14, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 15, 2000 at 11:59:08, Michael de la Maza wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Junior is humming along, not losing a single game, and forcing some of the best >>>>>>>players in the world to play perfectly in order to salvage draws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then Kramnik illustrates how to punish Junior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>_All_ of the GMs _instantly_ get it. Some of them apply the lessons better than >>>>>>>others, but all of them make Junior look silly and none of them lose. >>>>>> >>>>>>silly? >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not agree. >>>>>>You must be very smart in order to draw against GM's like anand and akopian. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In Anand's case the smartness belong to J6's operator. >>>> >>>>I disagree. >>>>Junior got equal positions against anand. >>>>Anand offered a draw because he knew that Junior is probably smart enough not to >>>>lose aganst him. >>> >>>Junior got equal position against Anand, yes, but after just 20 moves. This is >>>too little, in my opinion. Who knows what could happen 20 moves later? That's >>>why I say that the "smartest" move was done by the operator. >>> >>>Alvaro >> >>I disagree. >>The position was position that computers know to play and this is the reason >>that anand agreed to a draw. >> > >You might be right but until Anand tells clearly the reasons of his draw >proposal we won't know. There are other possible reasons, some of which have >been stated here, to propose a draw. > >>Maybe Junior could win without the move that you called "smartest" move. >> > >Yes, maybe (no irony intended). And it could also lose. It is not possible to >know what could have happened. You seem to be surer about DJ6 possibilities than >its operator, otherwise he would have refused the draw offer. > >Alvaro Polo I believe that the operator wanted to be sure about the GM norm and did not want to take a risk. It does not prove that he believed that the chances of loss are bigger than the chances of win. I believe that the chances are equal but I think that he should continue because win and GM norm is not the only purpose in chess. The purpose is to learn and he could see losing the game against anand also as positive because in this case the programmer can learn more about the weaknesses of the program. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.