Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:08:56 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 16:47:00, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 18, 2003 at 16:21:54, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>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. > >Cannot be because such games are simply not happeing on ICC. But Bob can speak >for himself. Bob? > Tough question. A few IM's have played marathon long game matches. And more than a few GM players have played marathon blitz matches. I once watched Roman play for way over 12 hours non-stop vs Crafty several years ago. I am not sure how he can do that and play as well at the end as he did at the beginning, while Kasparov/ Kramnik were not able to do so. But I'm sure that there is a plausible explanation... > >> >>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.