Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:11:09 02/18/03
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. ...Nxg4 is likely the best Black has there. ...h6 is just weak. As was O-O to begin with. >>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 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? DJ had a super-GM result. Obviously it didn't play like a human super-GM, but what matters is strength, not style. >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. That's a highly debatable assertion. Perhaps at the moment of the game most people thought it loses, I think the consensus has switched to it being fine for black. But then, I thought it was fine for black to begin with, so maybe I'm biased. ;-) >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. In which game in _this_ match do you see that >happening? I'd say that DJ was very impressive in game 4, when Kasparov played the hedgehog setup. GK could easily have lost that game (Bxe5). >And I >don't particularly assess DB2 as "super-GM" stuff myself. Very strong. Very >consistent. Just >like Deep Junior. DB, too, had a super-GM result. Dave
This page took 0.01 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.