Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:49:34 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2003 at 11:29:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 17, 2003 at 01:54:24, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 21:45:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2003 at 21:01:43, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>> >>>>>So you _think_ that is why the computer took the pawn? Rather than just >>>>>"taking a pawn?" BTW most programs would have played that move. Do you think >>>>>they _all_ understood what was going to come down that file as a result of >>>>>their _voluntarily_ opening it up to win a pawn??? >>>>> >>>>>I don't. At least not mine... >>>> >>>>I don't quite see the relevance of your this. >>>>You gave Nxg4 as an example of a horrible move, I argued that its not a horrible >>>>move. I guess you still think Nxg4 is horrible? If so, we agree to differ. >>> >>> >>>I think that in general principle, Nxg4 is _bad_. If it _happens_ that it is >>>the >>>best move here, so be it, but I'd bet that a program thinks that black is >>>better, >>>and that's wrong. >> >>I bet that it does not think that black is better. >> >>Even an old version(Junior7) gives advantage for white. >>My program(Movei) also gives a small advantage for white and likes Nxg4. > >I am talking about "black is better after Nxg4 than after another move." IE the >score goes _up_ for taking the pawn. The score for Nxg4 is better than the score of other moves but all of the scores negative for black. > >> >>Nxg4 does not win a pawn because white takes the h7 pawn so I see no reason to >>think that programs evaluate black as better. >> >>It is possible that the program planned other things against g4 but understood >>later that they are bad. >> >>Saying that the program played bad only because of the fact that it got bad >>position is wrong. > >Eh? So I can play _good_ and still get a bad position? :) > >Then I have been playing "good" since I started playing chess at age 7. :) you can play like 2500 and get a bad position if the opponent played like 2800; I do not define 2500 as bad. > > >> >>programs are not perfect but against kasparov even GM's can get a bad position >>in the opening. >> >>If the program played the opening like 2500 and the rest of the game like 2900 >>then I think that it is not wrong to say that it played like a super GM. > >Yeah, but do you think it played "the rest of the game like 2900"??? I think that it is dependent on the game and it is possible that it even played the rest of the game stronger than 2900 in game 3. > >I don't. Again, games 1 2 and 3 could have been all losses, easily, and should >have >ended 2.5-.5 at least. That's "super-GM" level chess? Particularly after >looking at >game 1? I do not get conclusions for one game. Game 1 was the worse game of junior. I do not think game 2,3 were so bad. > >Another criteria for super-GM chess (IMHO): In which game did the comp have any >sort >of initiative out of the opening? Perhaps in game 5 after the sac, and even >that is not a clear >good move as most seem to think it loses. I think that other super GM's will have problems to get the initiative out of book against kasparov. I think that in game 2 Junior got some initiative out of the opening Junior also got advantage in game 4 and Kasparov was afraid to adnce b5 because of unclear piece sacrifice of Junior. If you look at the 1997 match, DB2 >played clearly >strong chess and had an initiative in several of the games. Game 2 comes to >mind as a game >with only one flaw, that of Kasparov resigning when he should not have. But >Kasparov was >defending the entire game. Game 2 and game 6 were the only games that DB97 got initiative after the opening but kasparov was less prepared for that match so it is better not to compare between the matches because this is not the subject of this discussion. In which game in _this_ match do you see that >happening? And I >don't particularly assess DB2 as "super-GM" stuff myself. Very strong. Very >consistent. Just >like Deep Junior. The discussion here is not about the level of DB97. 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.