Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 00:55:01 10/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 17:55:20, Louis Fagliano wrote: >On October 17, 2002 at 16:18:40, Jonas Cohonas 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. >>> If the end result were 3-5 to Kramnik, it wouldn't look so close. Now it's it's >>>almost a question of luck what happens in the one last game. >>> The last game of Kasp.vs DB, the luck was on the DB side, because kasparov had >>>just gone to the end of his nerves. >>> >>>Don't forget Kramnik had the program, long before, and Kramnik is probably a bit >>>stronger than Kasparov VS computers. So DB already doesn't look like it was >>>stronger. >>>S.Taylor >> >>So far DF7 has not won a game, Kramnik has lost both. I have yet to see a game >>where DF7 controled the game, i am not impressed. >> >>Regards >>Jonas > >Well, just plain outplaying a super GM is not one of a computer's strengths. DF >got it's wins by alertly pouncing on Kramnik's tactical errors instead of >outplaying him and that's because that's where it's strength lies. > >But alertly pouncing on your opponent's tactical errors is still part of the >game of chess and is certainly a legitimate way to win. > >Thus, the last hurdle for computers to jump would be to win by outplaying a >super GM. They are not able to do that yet. But few people think that that day >will never come. Well DF7 would not have had to have outplayed Kramnik, like Rebel did in one of it's games against Van Wely, but simply keeping an advantage and winning the endgame, that would have been enough to impress me. Kramnik made an outright blunder in his first loss and in his second loss, the concrete solid Kramnik all of a sudden wants to win a beauty price, with a knight sac that is as speculative as spectacular. No matter where the computers strenght lies (and there are a lot of games that shows they can even outplay the strongest human players) it should be able to atleast win on it's own, without "help" from Kramnik. [Event "Chess Meeting 2000 Super"] [Site "Dortmund"] [Date "2000.07.16"] [Round "9"] [White "Leko, P."] [Black "Junior 6"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C48"] [PlyCount "120"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 5. Bc4 Bc5 6. d3 c6 7. Nxd4 Bxd4 8. Qf3 h5 9. h3 d5 10. exd5 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 cxd5 12. Bb3 Qc7 13. O-O O-O 14. Qg3 a5 15. a4 Be6 16. Bh6 Ne8 17. Bd2 f6 18. f4 exf4 19. Qxf4 Nd6 20. Rae1 Bf7 21. Qd4 Qc6 22. Re7 Rfe8 23. Rxf7 Nxf7 24. Bxd5 Qd7 25. Rb1 Rad8 26. c4 Qxa4 27. Rxb7 Rd7 28. Rxd7 Qxd7 29. Bxa5 Re2 30. Bb6 Qe8 31. Bc7 Rxc2 32. c5 Kh8 33. Bg3 Qd8 34. Bf2 Rc1+ 35. Kh2 Qb8+ 36. g3 Nh6 37. Kg2 Rc2 38. Be4 h4 39. Qe3 f5 40. Bd5 hxg3 41. Qxg3 Qb5 42. Qe3 Qb4 43. d4 Qb2 44. c6 Kh7 45. Qf4 Qa3 46. Be4 Rxf2+ 47. Kxf2 fxe4 48. c7 Qa8 49. d5 Qa7+ 50. Kg2 Qa2+ 51. Qf2 Qc4 52. d6 Qc6 53. Qf8 e3+ 54. Qf3 Qc2+ 55. Kf1 Qc4+ 56. Kg2 Qe6 57. Qc6 Qa2+ 58. Kh1 Nf5 59. Qe4 Qa1+ 60. Kh2 Qb2+ 0-1 [Event "Chess Meeting 2000 Super"] [Site "Dortmund"] [Date "2000.07.08"] [Round "2"] [White "Junio 6"] [Black "Huebner, R."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C04"] [PlyCount "39"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nc6 4. Ngf3 Nf6 5. e5 Nd7 6. Nb3 Be7 7. Bb5 O-O 8. O-O Ncb8 9. c3 b6 10. Nbd2 Ba6 11. a4 c6 12. Bxa6 Nxa6 13. Qe2 Nc7 14. b3 c5 15. Re1 Nb8 16. Ba3 Nc6 17. Qd3 Rc8 18. a5 Ra8 19. Kh1 Qd7 20. dxc5 1-0 At Dortmund 2000 Junior lost a couple too, but these wins are an example that todays comps can outplay strong humans. PS: if you want i can send you a bunch of comp v human games, that illustartes what i mean. Regards Jonas
This page took 0.01 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.