Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 23:49:07 06/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
>... >grep "Uli" FIDE*.txt > >Can't find. Yes, you're right, i'm a nobody. I'd better shut up and listen when rated players like you´are giving us some lessons here. Vincent, Vincent ... Comet will slay your program again for this at next ipcc. -:) BTW, I wasn't commenting on Kasparov's play in any way; so I miss the relation of your remarks below to our discussion here about search algos and harware. Nevertheless, have a nice day and best regards, Uli > >Definitely stronger chessplayers will be able to tell you some >facts about the games. The games are big crap. > >Biggest shame on Kasparov of course. He played beginner games. >In computer-human games kasparov managed for a year or 10 to >get away with that. In the end he always won without doing a thing. > >This time in game 6 he was fooled. This was very good for the >personality of Kasparov i think. Very bad for chess though. > >So there is some very hard proof. Toying like a boy of 2200 he >played some games, focussing on only giving now and then a pawn >away, missing simple strategic wins which any 2200+ would never >have missed. > >Of course most of those wins were in opening. Only the press conference >like is at a CB magazine short before the match is showing the >real truth. > >Kasparov played a baby in his opinion. And he was right. Yeah he >was pretty right. But even a baby can win that position which >happened in game 6. Kasparov thought he would even not lose from >a baby in such a position. > >WHAT AN ARROGANCE. > >But we definitely can analyse the games. > >And the games are bad. BAD. BAD. BAD. > >Way under my level, AND I'M A BABY CHESS PLAYER IN THE EYES OF KASPAROV. > >He can handle 100 in a simulatenously exhibition of mine level >at the same time, probably not blindfolded, but nearly. > >And yes, i'm not even IM yet. I'll get it i guess one day. I'm not >trying hard, but i'll get IM if i try a bit harder. > >the games are way under IM level. With exception of game 6 from Deep >Blue side, around 6 big errors a game. > >Nothing as bad as a strategic error, and kasparov made strategic error >after strategic error in many games. > >Seirawan is excusing him in a way which is just too friendly: "mr >kasparov is himself never playing this type of positions, so >that he misses these basic strategic concepts by not playing the >better move, this might be an explanation for that!" > >It's obvious only one man is to blame for all this. I bet the match >was good for HIS ego. But it's bad for chess in general. Everyone nowadays >thinks chess is a solved game. > >This in a time that a computer >cannot even drive a car from place A to B, >without getting major accidents, with one of the >problems being that it can't process all the information >between A and B, just because there is too much data. > >Even worse, the only way to put my games into the computer is by >entering it by mouse. Just scanning my paper doesn't work. Scanner >software is so bad, that it appears i bought for nothing a scanner >to scan my chess notations. > >And i write not so horrible i think. Nowadays most games i write >down without making writing mistakes. > >But i can't scan the notation into the computer, as the OCR programs >suck just too much. > >Speach, we can go on for hours here. > >In short, AI is at a very stupid level, one of the reasons being that >the processing power of cpu's is still pathetic compared to what we need. > >Yet many people think chess is solved. > >Solved because kasparov played another 5 pathetic games, from game 1 >kasparov repeatedly has said: "i shouldn't have won that game". > >Read: "i played so horrible that game and i even won it, >after winning that game i thought i played an unborn baby and the >next 5 games i thought i was playing one". > >You can say a lot, but a few things we CAN conclude: > a) the moves played by Deep Blue were very bad > b) the good moves played by Deep Blue are also played by todays programs > c) nearly none of the bad moves of deep blue are played by todays programs > d) Amazingly Kasparov has hardly had critics about his bad performance > against deep blue. MOST likely that's because of some lies he said > in front of cameras and accusations which simply aren't true. No > deep blue team didn't cheat with karpov in the background or behind > some kind of monitor influencing the game. All lies from kasparov which > reveal the truth. I'm blaming kasparov for something, but amazingly > in nearly all articles written about kasparov-deep blue this hardly > is getting written down. Only in the chess scene itself this is getting > written down > > If my memory doesn't let me down: > e) in 1790 there was a machine that played very good chess, so people said. > It beated strong chess player after strong chessplayer. > f) in 1840 still several people believed that around 1790 a machine > was constructed which played very good chess > g) in 1900 people knew that there was no such machine, only a machine > with a hidden GM inside, so the machine wasn't playing very good chess > h) in 1914 there finally was a machine which could play a bit of chess itself > of course very limited chess and very bad. WW1 of course overshadowed > the introduction of this machine. > i) in 1997 we had a computer which beated kasparov in a match, so > it was believed, by most people, that it really played very > strong chess > j) in 20xx it was obvious that the thing wasn't so good > k) in 2yyy there really was a strong machine > >my hope is that xx gets replaced by 01 when Kramnik annihilates Fritz >end of this year. > >yy is unknown of course. Historically spoken i should fill in 110 there, >but my own guess is 066. > >Best regards, >Vincent > >>> >> >>>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.