Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:20:56 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2001 at 02:49:07, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>... >>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. I'm not saying you're a nobody. I'm saying that you're ignoring the biggest facts we have. Those facts are the games. We even can see the mainlines of DB. In the position where it played the patzer move Qa5? in game 1, there it first planned Qb8? and some other comic moves. Why keep ignoring all those facts? Crafty 15 ply is tactical stronger as deep blue at 10(6), see Uri's output. Definitely not positionally, but just tactical. The proof is so overwhelming everywhere. But still the most important fact gets ignored, and one of the guilty parties there is kasparov. I will never say to a GM when he blunders at blitz level: "oh you should do better". At blitz GMs might blunder. Their GM title is based upon 40 in 2 games. The easiest way to win a GM title is to win the world youth championships, that's not so easy though and usually someone who already is GM or nearly GM, is winning that. 3 hard norms are needed to get GM. Even your biggest friends won't give you your GM norm easily. The norm conditions are *very hard*. They are all based upon 40 in 2 games. It is that level where we saw 6 games of the lowest level on earth (non professional level, so could have been a game of mine) played by Kasparov. Why ignore that fact in all analysis? Deep Blue is not a mythe. It's a machine from 1997 (design started years sooner) which is huge and completely outdated by 2001 standards. We can analyse the moves, read its output. Yet most what people do here is bluff how strong it was and that it would beat whole world in a simultaneously exhibition even. Not to mention the theoretic impossible search depths we recently heart 17-19 ply fullwidth WITH extensions? Oh my, oh my. And that out of the mouth of scientists. AMAZING. -------------------------------------------------------------- >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.