Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:09:11 05/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1998 at 11:05:38, Howard Exner wrote: >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. Indeed, that's how we knew Kasparov, but the games after that he showed how bad mankind usually plays against computers. GM. v/d Wiel called game II: "Deep underestimation of the side of Kasparov". I fully agree, but we better cannot discuss about this too much, because there is no evidence besides a dozen bad moves of Kasparov in this game, and a year of speculations. Fact is that Kasparov played game II as if he played 'Deep Mudd' (which accidentely is my name in a original way translated to the English). The comical thing was that Kasparov was fully correct, if he just had played some what more moves instead of resigning. Had he played on, then no doubt it would have become a draw. In important matches such games usually get played on until the last pawn, and that's not exactly what Kasparov did this match. He resigned a drawn position. From this i read that Kasparov was at that point considering this match to be of little importance. Of course the IBM viewpoint is very selfish, Kasparov probably didn't consider that he could lose once, because he clearly didn't realize that afterwards he wouldn't get a revanche match. 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.