Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 14:23:30 10/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2002 at 16:38:32, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 18, 2002 at 15:46:25, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On October 18, 2002 at 15:19:00, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 18, 2002 at 14:53:17, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>> >>>>On October 18, 2002 at 05:05:56, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 18, 2002 at 03:55:01, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>If the theoretical result of the game is a draw then >>>>>it means that it is impossible to win without help of the opponent. >>>> >>>>The two games Kramnik lost, where not your typical drawn positions, so your >>>>logic (however true in a perfect world it might be) does not apply here. >>>>When i say "help" i don't mean the normal small inaccuracies that both human and >>>>computers make troughout any given game it/they play, when i say "help" it is a >>>>nice way of saying "giving away". >>>> >>>>>If you talk about stupid mistakes then Deeper blue also won because of stupid >>>>>mistakes of the opponent. >>>> >>>>And your point is? i mean if that is infact the case, then how come the two (on >>>>the paper) strongest computers to date can not do what other weaker programs >>>>have done before, namely outplay the opponent without any "help" from the human. >>> >>>When did weaker programs outplay kramnik or kasparov in 120/40? >> >>I never said that a weaker program outplayed kasp or kram under those >>conditions... >>I just pointed out that in the past weaker programs have done exactly that >>against almost as strong human opposition... >> >>>> >>>>>resigning in a draw position and playing an opening that kasparov was not >>>>>prepared to play. >>>> >>>>Just because a position is proved to be drawn in the aftermath, does not mean >>>>that kramnik could have drawn the actual game. >>> >>>I was talking about kasparov's case but I believe that kramnik could draw the >>>game without hints except the hint that it is a draw. >> >>You also said qoute: "resigning in a drawn position" which could apply to both >>players and since you did not specify which of the two had to be one in >>question, i had the nerve to apply it to the most recent case... > >I said >*resigning in a draw position and playing an opening that kasparov was not >prepared to play.* Saying it all in one sentense does not make it any clearer who you where talking about except the last part of kasparov playing an opening he was not prepared for, however no matter what you meant to say it still applies to both players and that was my point. > >Kramnik already beated Junior before the match. > >Queens were in the board and Kramnik won by king attack. >There are ways to win without trading queens and I do not think that it is >possible to prevent exchange of queens and closed positions by book because >there are a lot of ways to play moves that were not played in the past. > >Uri Well statistics should always be used in a sensible way, statistics strongly indicate that computers do better against GM's with their queens ON the board, regardless of the fact that Kramnik won the ONE game you refer to. In that game Kramnik was allowed to play the stonewall which we all know by now can be a compkiller if played correctly, my dad showed me the stonewall as an anti comp strategy a couple of years before and told how he used to beat up the university computer on a daily basis as early as the mid 90'ies using the exact same strategy as Kramnik! And for a fact i know that chessmaster 5500 will happily go into the stonewall, i know because i used my dad's ideas to beat it, even in tournament mode. Regards Jonas
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.