Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:06:55 02/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2003 at 10:30:00, Amir Ban wrote: > > Opening preparations: Kasparov is no. 1 in this regard, and he showed what >this means in game 1. However, Boris put up an excellent fight and in the second >part of the match it appeared that we were getting the upper hand. > > Tactics: Strangely enough, towards the end of the match I realized that Junior >is not outplaying Kasparov tactically. I have seen enough games against >grandmasters where this happened to realize that nothing of the sort is >happening against this particular opponent. For this reason I was less >enthusiastic about game 5 than others arguing that early complications lead us >nowhere. A note before I comment: (1) I think you guys did great in the match. I can't imagine being disappointed with drawing with arguably the best player in the world. (2) I don't think any _good_ chess player is surprised with the concept of the computer getting out-tacticaled... Computers excel at wide "bushy" tactics with lots of pieces doing lots of things. They are _not_ good at narrow/deep tactics, which is where a GM excels. > > Positional understanding: perhaps even more surprising than tactics, Junior >was holding its own in positional play, the best examples of which were games 3 >& 4. We have had our experiments in the past with so called anti-GM strategies >and with avoiding closed positions and everything else that according to >conventional wisdom is supposed to be unsuitable for computers and all these >were left in the wastebin for this match. > > Endgames: This aspect of the game was hardly discussed in this match. > > In the end Deep Junior played not only as strongly as a super-GM (a debate >that has been going in this forum for several years too long), but actually as a >super-GM. I've seen opinions expressed that the programs are 2500 in >understanding and 2900 in tactics, so you get an overall 2700 performance. I'm >not buying it. The same for some comments like "typical computer move" which in >some cases were so unthinking that they were seemingly generated by a computer. > I disagree with the "played like a super-GM" player, however. I doubt you will find _any_ 2200 FIDE player that would play as badly as DJ played in the first three games, up until move 30 or so. Game 1 would not have been played by any 2000 player I know, myself included. So saying that it has super-GM positional understanding is _way_ _way_ offbase. Yes, it played good moves at times. But it also played _horrible_ moves at times. And I am not just talking about tactically horrible moves such as the blunders that Kasparov dropped on the board, I am talking about moves such as taking the g-pawn and getting exposed to a horrific attack. So while I certainly think DJ played very well, I would be hard-pressed to think it played like a super-GM positionally. I think its "super-GM" skill is great resiliance, the ability to play game after game, at the same "level" repeatedly. Compare Kasparov at game 1 vs Kasparov at game 5-6. That is a factor I had not considered, and it is a factor that I don't _know_ will apply to all human opponents, but at least in watching Kasparov and Kramnik, it seems to be a silicon advantage that offets a lot of tactical/positional weaknesses. But to think that a "super-GM" would play game 1 as black is a stretch I'm not willing to make. To think that a "super-resiliant-GM" would play like DJ did is perfectly believable... I think it was an _outstanding_ result, regardless of mistakes made by either the program or the human... > I believe that the two different ways of playing chess: human chess and >computer chess are starting to converge at their highest level. To be sure, the >programs are from time to time conceding their silicon origins, but in the same >way we humans must admit that when events exceed our understanding, then >something mechanical in our own thought processes reveals itself. > I think it might be more related to biological fatigue than anything else. I would have hated to play the same kasparov that played game 1, five more games. IE the typical golf-cart can't touch a 100M sprinter, but it can keep on going until the human drops, and it will eventually win the race.
This page took 0.03 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.