Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:10:35 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 07:59:54, Amir Ban wrote: >On February 15, 2003 at 13:06:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >> >>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. >> > >I can't agree with any of this. > >It would be good to back the statement that Junior played the "first three >games, up until move 30 or so" worse than 2200 with some concrete examples of >where a 2200 player would play better. The three games lasted 27, 30 & 36 moves, >so what does this mean at all ? Take game 1. I don't know of _anybody_ that would play like that, except for some computers. Totally lost. Take game 2. Every GM criticized the idea of "winning the exchange" instantly. It took me (and other lowly humans) a lot longer to conclude "this looks very dangerous for white, where prior to accepting we all thought white had a better position. Take game 3. Taking the g-pawn to open a file in your own king's face. Did you hear _any_ IM/GM player that thought that was a good move? I didn't and we had _several_ on ICC. So in the first three games, the program voluntarily self-destructed, even though it did win a game due to a simple-to-see blunder by the opponent, and it managed to draw game 2 where it could have lost, even though it was clearly better in the opening. That's not to say that DJ didn't play well at times, but it did _not_ play "super-GM position moves" in _those_ games. Perhaps it did a few times. But a few times is not enough when playing a super-GM. > >The one example you give, of 10... Nxg4 in game three, is wrong. Taking the pawn >is the only move that does not lose quickly. I assume that what you prefer is >what crafty would play, which I see is 10... h6. I don't know if this is >apparent to a 2200 player, but 10... h6 11. g5 is hopeless for black. Crafty >does not even expect 11. g5. No. I suspect Crafty would do the same thing. Notice that I didn't say that I thought Crafty was better than DJ, because I _don't_. > >The picture you give of Kasparov missing won positions due to making "tactically >horrible moves" against an opponent who shows tactical resilience (while playing >like a positional patzer) simply did not happen in this match. Maybe you have >been watching crafty on ICC, but not Deep Junior in NYC. Sorry, but I watched _every_ game. I didn't get to see all of the last three games, but I watched games 1-3 from start to finish. If you are happy with the decisions it made, and if you are convinced it played like a super-GM in those three games, that's up to you. To my eye, and to the eyes of the GM/IM players that were analyzing on ICC, that opinion was not prevalent. > >Kasparov did not make any real blunders in this match, at least not the way I >understand "blunder" as a move that he and much lesser players would in normal >circumstances easily avoid. Kasparov's motives in describing his mistakes as >"fingerfehlers" are obvious, since if they were so, then they somehow don't >count and we have to count the games he lost as surely drawn, and those he drew >as surely won, but we don't have to buy that. Certainly he did. Game two comes to mind. He had a forced draw. He made a move that led to a forced loss. That is a blunder in _any_ book. (Ng6+ was the forced draw, Rh5 was an outright blunder.) > >To describe 32. Rh5 of game 3 as a blunder is a gross misrepresentation. It >misses a rather spectacular mate possibility. Not something that one sees in a >blitz game (not even Eduard Nemeth). No, but everyone saw Ng6+ instantly, and it only took a few seconds for GM players to say "oh no" after Rh5. (of course it took the comps a few milli- seconds to see Rh5 was bad). > >Calling 25... Qa1+ of game 2 a blunder is really stretching it. Kasparov, by his >own words, worked it out to a forced win, but missed a rook check 18 ply down >the road. This is not a blunder but a hard luck story. Anderssen's combination >in the Evergreen Game was not as deep. Would we accept Dufrense saying "I was >totally winning but blundered and allowed Rd1" ? > >Amir I'm not sure I'd call that a blunder by Kasparov. Computers said Qa1 was an instant draw. While f4 was better for black. Whether it would win or not is unknown, and even Kasparov said that f4 also led to a draw, so that's perfectly ok, in m book. Even playing Bxh7 rather than g3 in game 5 was ok, because he gave reasonable justification (avoiding incredibly complicated tactics) for avoiding what was probably a win for white (according to recently published GM analysis, although the "final story" is not yet in...). My only comment was addressed at "super-GM positional play" by DJ. I saw very good play, particularly when it was in great trouble. But I didn't see "super-GM positional play" in many cases..
This page took 0.02 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.