Author: Amir Ban
Date: 13:25:09 02/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 12:10:35, Robert Hyatt 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 ? > > >Take game 1. I don't know of _anybody_ that would play like that, except >for some computers. Totally lost. > This is handwaving and doesn't answer the question >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. > Why would they say it's a good move when it's the only move ? See more below. >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_. > You did not get my meaning: 1. Nxg4 is the only move here 2. Crafty doesn't play it but h6, a weak move Criticizing Nxg4 is more of a weak player's reflex than a serious comment. > > >> >>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). > Did you actually look into the variation he missed ? Please play through it on a real chessboard, then come back here and tell me it's an "outright blunder" and the GM's would see it in a few seconds. > > >> >>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. > The computers said Qa1 was an instant draw ? Really ? You can leave a computer overnight and it still won't get close to resolving that position. Ok, I believe that you followed the match, but you were looking through very peculiar glasses because everything you saw was simpler by several orders of magnitude than it actually was. >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...). > It will be analyzed for quite some time more I guess, but we already have from Kasparov at the closing ceremony and later that he believes it is sound. Amir >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 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.