Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:12:54 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 09:36:28, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 ? >> >>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. >> >>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. >> >>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. >> >>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). >> >>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 > >Thank you for the many opinions. I hope that the debate will be a serious and >lively debate. I want to add - of course with extreme humility - the point of >the Bxh2. Did you forget the many questions here? Just to give the Black&White >picture a little bit of color. > >Rolf Tueschen That seemed to be very good, and a move my program was not going to find, which only means I have more work to do. However, I'm a bit concerned about making a great move here and an ugly move there. The ugly move there will hurt more than the great move here, in the long run, if the goal is to play at the top of the heap (Super-GM chess). At that level, one bad move is generally all it takes, while it might take several consecutive great moves just to hang on.
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.