Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 13:21:54 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 16:16:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 18, 2003 at 15:31:59, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On February 18, 2003 at 14:56:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2003 at 12:12:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>I have no _proof_, but I hold the following thesis: it was a chess show event. >>>Couöd you doubt that? Kramnik and Kasparov drew because of future events and the >>>best possible advertisement for the chess companies and sponsors. uebner already >>>drew Fritz. Bareev drew Hiarcs! I don't buy the stamina issue. You cannot prove >>>it either. But I know from other chess show events like simuls that GM lose or >>>draw against "good talents" , yes. But never such a prominent figure became GM! >>>Know what I mean? If such a Major draws, he also has a performance of a GM. But >>>never could I read that the Major or film star so and so played on a GM level! >>>Such hyperbole came up with CC... :( >>> >>>Hey Bob, I know that you are among those who are relatively careful, don't take >>>me wrong. But now you are a bit speculative on the stamina issue. Did you ever >>>hear of the famous 24 hours Blitz tournaments in Germany? So far about stamina >>>of chessplayers. >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >> >>Not too long ago, Bob indicated that there were no GMs on ICC able to dominate >>Crafty. I would think that play on ICC has nothing to do with money or "show" >>issues. For me, this is evidence that programs have reached a parity point, >>with their advantages offsetting GM advantages. > > >Pardon me? You are confusing Blitz and tournament chess time schedules. I think his statement includes slow time controls as well, not just blitz. So my original point holds, I think. Matt >Sorry. >Cool down my friend. Always think twice before you answer my messages. I am very >_dangerous_ in tactics. :) > >Rolf Tueschen > > > >> >>Therefore, it is not difficult for me to take the recent "show" results at face >>value. Other speculations really don't help clarify anything and have the added >>defect of accusing someone of corruption without proof, which is another >>negative thing we could all do without. >> >>Matt >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>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 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.