Author: Howard Exner
Date: 08:05:38 05/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1998 at 09:03:20, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >On May 11, 1998 at 02:27:47, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On May 10, 1998 at 20:49:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>> round 1 was a lucky win by Kasparov... one or two tempi >>>and things turn totally around... From the threads on this topic the above was said by Bob. Since you are replying I assume you are agreeing that Kasparov was lucky. Is that a correct assumption? >> >>Could you elaborate on this assertion? The way I'm reading >>it know is, "You were lucky to mate me because I was just about >>to mate you!" > >I mean: Kasparov played very well, but he played using a style which >i cannot recommend against computers. Leaving your opponent >an open file, AND giving it the opportunity to make tactics, is quite >hazardeous. For me this is hazardous also but I'm sure Gary K. feels right at home in these situations. > >Kasparov won this game TACTICALLY, remember? On the surface yes, but in GK's mind it could also have come about because of his huge store of patterns (Strong bishop and passed pawns against a weak king may not need a lot of calculation for him) > >Deep Blue won an exchange, but to no avail. If Kasparov didn't >calculate this all, then he's hopelessly lucky. Again, my belief is that this was typical of so many of Kasparov's wins. No luck at all from my perspective. > >If i play a computer in this way i lose guaranteed. > >So Kasparov outsearched the computer in this game using a combination >of insight and sharp tactical calculation. Yes, this statement I fully agree with. > >Greetings, >Vincent
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.