Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:13:59 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 16:59:48, Sune Fischer wrote: >On October 27, 2002 at 15:46:07, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>My definition of 1 ply error is an error that computer can see a big change in >>the score based on a search of one ply. > >Are you kidding. That sacrifice was very deep, he calculated for 45 minutes. >What a computer thinks at 1 ply is irrelevant, it can't possibly have seen a >fraction of the considerations Kramnik did. Irrelevant. Playing a bad sacrifice is still an one ply error even if the selective search of kramnik could not see the refutation. > >>The mitsake of kramnik in game 5 was 1 ply error because after the mistakes >>programs can see in 1 ply that kramnik is losing a piece(they search the first >>move check and extend after the moves because they extend checks and after it >>they go to qsearch but it is enough for them to see that kramnik is losing a >>piece. > >I might agree with you if you include regular qsearch on top of that 1 ply, but >if they do extensions at 1 ply and actually find the refutation only at 10 plies >deep, then it's of course a 10 ply error. The iteration counter is just an >arbitrary number in that context. I think from the point of view of chess programs and most programs can see at depth 1 after kramnik's mistake that kramnik is losing because they do check extensions and do capture in the qsearch. > >>The mistake of kramnik in game 6 is also 1 ply error because programs can see >>big change in the score based on search of 1 ply. >>I do not agree that the refutation is more than 1 ply. >>Programs usually evaluate from the first ply that the sacrifice is wrong. >> >>Playing sacrifices for the beauty and not because they are correct is a mistake >>of weak players and not of players at the level of kramnik. > >I don't think so, chess is art and chess players have different styles. The best chess players see it first as a sport. >As the saying goes: "when you have found a good move, look for a better one". Yes but spending a lot of time on analyzing a move that you suspect to be better does not make sense when you already have a good move. >Clearly Kramnik wanted to play the beautiful sacrifice, but be also wanted to be >sure it was correct, hence the 45 minutes of thinking. >He must have miscalculated, that's all (I don't conspire to him losing on >purpose). If his opponent had been a human, things might have been different :) I suspect that GM's will have no problem to find the right defence in 120/40 time control. The only case when kramnik did something similiar against humans was against anand and anand had no problem to win. 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.