Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 13:42:56 07/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2001 at 15:51:30, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 21, 2001 at 12:24:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On July 21, 2001 at 11:48:20, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>In case of another draw tomorrow, there will be another "big point" for the >>>computer party, since Huebner isn't known only as "drawish" player but as an >>>anti-computer specialist and a strong GM first of all. >> >>Hmm, I thought he hated computers. I don't doubt he'll have done >>at least some preparation for this match but that does not make him an >>anticomputer specialist. >> > >The fact the he hates the computers reinforce his motivation to beat them, and >accordingly the specialistic preparation needed against them. > >>Rebel's result over Van der Wiel was more impressive in this regard. >> >>>That should mean that human and comps are in a good equilibrium, and IMHO >>>taking in account recent argentinian results, the balance plate is starting to >>>fall in the computer side. > >>There are good arguments for Tiger and Fritz, but about the other >>computers I don't know. > >I was obvoiusly referring to them , probably generalizing too much. > >>I don't think this match means much (this is my opinion, feel free to >>disagree) for either argument. > >I disagree for this simple fact : it wasn't just one game match and neither a >blitz match. So the result is _very_ significative since it is a six-game match >and moreover on regular tournament time. >Then Dr. Hubner had also the opportunity to prepare against his "silicon" >opponent. > >Hubner is only a single opponent, which >>isn't remotely as representative as playing a full field of GM's (as >>Tiger has done). Also, this is a match, so matchplay strategies apply. > >What do you mean for matchplay strategies ? > >>I'm far from impressed by play from either side. Hubner blundered away >>a win and Fritz never really had the upper hand at any time. >> >>I'd expected quite a bit more from this match. To me it looks as if >>Hubner was playing for draws in the hope of the computer making a (big) >>positional blunder to capitalize on. But he wasn't able to. If he starts >>pushing for a win he might very well lose. >>Bah. The other Dortmund games are way more interesting > >Sorry but the fact they are more interesting relies to the fact that probably >they weren't all draws ? Let me understand that since to me the human vs. >machine match was far more interesting than the others: De gustibus non >disputandum est. > >Regards. Yes, and my comprehension of the first 5 games is, that Huebner shows the computer a great deal of respect. Quite clearly he's playing safe and avoiding unclear positions and tactical possibilities. He is quick to search simplifications in order to reach technical positions. This is not the same as playing for a draw. But if we, as a mind experiment, would exchange Fritz for a talented 14 years old German - "Dieter Fritzgerald" ;) - with a rating of 2400 - then I'm quite sure that Huebner would have taken greater risks and showed another sort of play. Surely he knows about previous computer results and also about weaknesses. As a thorough chess master he has confidence in his own chess, and is not opting for "anti computer" setups. To continue this speculation, my believe is that Huebner thinks he should have won the 3rd game, but that Fritz played a good, solid chess. This goes for the first 5 games played. My impression is, taken Huebner's rating of 2612 into account, that Fritz, so far, has showed a *play* between 2500-2600. 50% vs Huebner of course gives a performance of exactly 2612, so the above refers to my own impression of the games played. Sune
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.