Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:47:01 09/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2001 at 02:55:23, Slater Wold wrote: >On September 10, 2001 at 02:23:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 09, 2001 at 23:55:43, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On September 09, 2001 at 20:37:43, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On September 09, 2001 at 19:59:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 09, 2001 at 19:44:59, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 09, 2001 at 19:26:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 09, 2001 at 16:18:36, K. Burcham wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>game 2 deep blue moves >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>26. f4 >>>>>>>>37. Be4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Be4 is a bad move. 37.Qb6 is winning there because it goes to a won >>>>>>>opposite bishops endgame (if you toss pieces with black) which directly >>>>>>>explains why some programs want to make this move. >>>>>> >>>>>>Anand seems to disagree with you. You can disagree with me all you want, but I >>>>>>think an arguement on the best chess move against Anand is going to be a short >>>>>>one. >>>>> >>>>>I know that I cannot trust analysis of GM's not because they are stupid but >>>>>because they usually do not spend a lot of time about their analysis and often >>>>>do not use computers to investigate if they are right or wrong. >>>>> >>>>>It is a fact that Peter leko is not very good in correspondence games based on >>>>>his ICCF rating and I believe that the main reason is simply the fact that >>>>>average players who waste a lot of time about their games are simply better than >>>>>super GM's who do not waste time about their corresondence games. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>LOL - Geez. No matter what I say............ >>>> >>>>Someone here always has a reason why Deep Blue was wrong when Deep Fritz cannot >>>>find its move.....even when one of the top 3 GM's in the world agrees it's the >>>>best move, you still have a reason why it's not. >>>> >>>>Look at the commentary for the moves. All GM's (and even Kaspy himself) who >>>>were at the game (and/or watching it) all agree Be4 is the move to make. >>>> >>>> >>>>Slate >>> >>>I concur Slate! >>> >>>Why Diepeeven still goes on about DB and Be4 etc. beats the hell out of me? >>> >>>Now he'll reply and say I'm calling him an asshole again! ;o) >>> >>> >>>Mr. Diepeeven, I think you're an intelligent man, very good chess player and >>>programmer. >>> >>>However, I don't understand your attitude about DB II or your opinion of >>>Kasparov, IE "He played like a child etc.? >> >>Note that I did not say that he played like a child and I remember that ernst >>heinz gave an analysis of many hours that suggested that Qb6 is the best move. >> >>The main problem is that the analysis was done at that time and >>humans simply did not have strong machines to help them and they did not give >>their machines many hours to analyze. >> >>I believe that the main line of Deep Fritz with Ra5 was not mentioned at that >>time but if I am wrong then you can correct me. >> >>I did not check if Qb6 is winning but my impression is that the game move is not >>winning. >> >>If people want to convince me that the game move was winning then the first step >>is to show me how white win against Deep Fritz in a correspondence game after >>the game move. >> >>Uri > >You keep saying this nonsense about GM's using computers to analyze their moves. > What is this all about?! You think Fischer used a computer to determine if >what he thought was correct? Hell no! Fisher already replied to you but I guess he is not the fisher that you meant. Bobby Fisher could not use computers to determine if he is correct because computers were not strong enough in his time. My guess is, he still doesn't. Last >time I checked, programmers ask GM's if the moves are correct, not the GM's ask >the computers! GM's also ask the computers and kasparov said that using computers helped him to be a better player. I beliecve that it is the same for other super GM's. > >All these games that Eduard wins against these engines, you think they are >suggesting the moves he is making? Once again, hell no! Engines have weaknesses but in most positions they are better than humans. I believe that engine with more time can perform better against Eduard and I doubt if his sacrifices are going to work in correspondence games but Eduard played against a known weakness of the programs and kasparov could not know about specific weaknesses of Deeper blue. Kasaprov could try nemeth's ideas but there are 2 possibilities here: 1)He was afraid that Deeper blue is going to refute his ideas by search(note that top programs of today can find better moves against nemeth ideas at tournament time control on fast hardware and it is clearly possible that part of the sacrifices of him are simply losing when the programs had not enough time to find the right defence. 2)He did not think about these ideas. > >I am going to believe a GM (especially a super-gm) over a computer, even after >the computer looks at it for 100 hours, and the GM looks at it for 1 minute. Deep Junior got 50% against super GM's in durtmond so it seems that 3 minutes of Deep Junior is not worse than 3 minutes of the average super GM. 100 hours for one of the top programs is clearly better than 1 minute of every human in most positions. >Nunn, Anand, and Ashley have all said that Be4 is the correct move. You're >going to have get a little more than Deep Fritz and Heinz to make the think >otherwise here. Sorry. I like Nunn because I know that he is using comouters to check his analysis I bought one of his books when he used computers to check his analysis and the programs were only Genius2 or Fritz3 on old hardware. Even at that time he admitted that computers helped him to see better moves in part of the cases. Unfortunately I believe that he did not use computers for enough time to analyze the position before Be4. 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.