Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:12:49 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 03:11:09, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. I believe I said that. The point is "super-GM stamina" mixed with less than super-GM tactics and positional play. But the stamina issue has seemed to be far more important than I would have imagined, after watching the DF/Kramnik and DJ/Kasparov matches. > > >>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. ;-) You mean the Bxh7 game was fine for black? I still believe white wins that. Perhaps time and analysis will answer the question definitively. > >>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). I don't think _either_ player did particularly well there. DJ just held on longer. Both it (and Kasparov) did more than a few tempo-chucking moves that most thought were wastes. > >>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. Sure it did, and for the same apparent reason (stamina) although if you look at games 1,2 and 3, DB played strong chess in every game. It didn't "luck into anything" by the opponent playing a grossly ugly move out of the blue. Game 2 really comes to mind as _looking_ like a game played like a super-GM. > >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.