Author: stuart taylor
Date: 19:12:38 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
Which shows that the human greatness is being rendered less killing than it used to be. This is true even without the human blunders! If Kramnic would make even a very small error, often then, the computer could begin to outplay Kramnik. S.Taylor On October 17, 2002 at 18:30:39, martin fierz wrote: >On October 17, 2002 at 16:40:41, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On October 17, 2002 at 15:35:33, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>On October 17, 2002 at 15:18:48, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>Why? Because even if Kramnik wins the last game, It doesn't make it look like >>>>Deeper Blue was really any better than Deep Fritz. And also, it shows computers >>>>to be up at the top, and also gives Kasparov a big incentive to beat that >>>>result vs. Deep Junior. (...) >>> >>>Regarding mass media perspective, draws of both matches would be most useful >>>results for computer chess in general. Because it neither could be claimed >>>based on results that comps are stronger or that top human players are stronger. >>>Which would mean, both the protesters against these 2 opinions had 50% to >>>complain against, and the followers of both opinions would have 50% support >>>each. >>> >>>So - optimistically thought - it could result in only half the nonsense than >>>when one side would win. >>> >>>Regards, >>>M.Scheidl >> >> >>But the games won by Fritz were actually lost by Kramnik. > >not quite. in game 5 kramnik was outplayed in what seemed to be an equal >position. fritz managed to get a position with some winning chances in that >game, without kramnik's ...Qc4?? blunder even. not that i think fritz would have >won the 4-3 queen endgame, because it seems to lack some knowledge there, but >still it would have outplayed kramnik from an equal position. >so while the blunder lost instantly, we did see a game where fritz got kramnik >into trouble "by itself". > >the reason i think fritz would not have won the q-ending: i played the black >side against my fritz 7 on my laptop at 2/40, after the trade in the Q-ending i >played ...h5 as black, which i think gives the right defensive setup, fritz >played g4 (still good) hg4 hg4 but 2 moves later it played the horrible g5? as >white, with the resulting pawn structure e5-f4-g5 vs f7-g6 which seems to give >black an easy draw. of course my laptop is much slower than the box in bahrain, >but if fritz plays g5 at search depth 14 it might as well play it at depth 18 - >it clearly doesnt know that it should avoid this move. >perhaps this is also something that could be tried with DF after the match, i >think kramnik would have drawn the q-ending easily, but he was afraid of it! > > >people want--as real evidence of parity/superiority--to see the computer take >it >>to the opponent and really out-GM the GM, rather than win by human blunder. >>They want to see a program that can play all aspects of the game like or better >>than a human GM. > >right! but we are getting closer... some years ago, computers only won when >humans lost games. in recent GM-comp matches i have seen a couple of great games >by the comps e.g. smirin-hiarcs where hiarcs played the endgame with BB-BN in >great style to reach a winning position but slipped at the last moment allowing >a fortress, or rebel-vanwely, a great attacking game, or hiarcs-gulko. in all >these games, the computer took the initiative and pressured the GM with great >play. this doesn't happen very often yet, but the day will come... > >aloha > martin
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.