Author: martin fierz
Date: 21:59:23 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 22:12:38, stuart taylor wrote: >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 why am i forgetting what? kramnik outplayed fritz in games 2 & 3. aloha martin > >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.