Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 18:52:03 05/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1998 at 09:00:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >On May 11, 1998 at 02:06:01, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On May 10, 1998 at 18:51:35, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>24.b4? this move is a horrible positional concession. Lucky for DB >>>most PC >>> programs play it too. >>>26. b5? this is horrible. a nitwit move. programs without that much >>>knowledge >>> play it too. Few short term tactical advantages are >>>preferred over >>> long term positional terms which tell it that it leads to >>>a horrible position. >>> >>>All the other ? marks of DB in game IV are of no use for me, but say >>>enough. >> >>This is garbage. The plan of b2-b4-b5 is !!, not ??. Deep Blue is >>looking for counterplay against Kasparov's king. If it doesn't get >>something happening it is just going to be crushed. > >Besides on my own chessinsight i'm relying on the analyses of Seirawan, >published June ICCA 97, you are GM too, or basing on other >GM's apart from Kasparov who may not join this discussion, unless >he publices proof like main lines and stuff why it is good? His publicly expressed opinion is good enough for me. He made them somewhere around the time of the match, either in the post-game comments, or perhaps during the break before games 5 and 6. I don't recall when exactly, it was a long time ago. But the reason I recall his comment is because b2-b4-b5 certainly would not have occured to me to be good! As for the "long term positional disadvantage" of the b-pawn advance, I am sure you know as well as I do that middlegames are played in the short term, not the long term. I think that's all I need to say here: if you can justify it tactically, you can do it. And Deep Blue is probably the best entity on the planet for justifying things tactically. Still, the tactics are far enough away to me that I would consider b2-b4-b5 a positional idea, not a tactical one. Maybe for a super-GM it is different. Anyway, if you want to think I am crazy, that is your prerogative. :-) Deep Blue would have had a hard time holding game four if it wasn't able to cause problems on the queenside. It certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Kasparov on the other side of the board. >Even if b4 is a good move, can you comment on all the other ? moves i >wrote about, like the horrible Bxg6?, which is played >clearly because of lacking simple positional knowledge. Some of the moves look sucky, I'll give you that. One problem that occurs with deep searches is that the software can see problems in normal continuations and decide that a line of play with a 'weak' move played early on gives a better backed-up alpha-beta score than alternative lines. This probably doesn't explain every move you consider to be dubious. And I'm not saying Deep Blue is a perfect player. I just think your comments were overly one-sided, and in the case of b2-b4-b5 I felt they were clearly over the top. >Greetings, >Vincent Dave Gomboc
This page took 0.02 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.