Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 19:39:52 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 19:45:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 16, 2003 at 19:23:14, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 16, 2003 at 19:12:42, rait wrote: >> >>>got wrong-wery closed (not suiteble) opening variation and then had no good >>>strategy if any... >> >>I will ask the question in a different way. >> >>What is the move that changed the theoretical result of the game from draw to >>win for kasparov? >> >>I think that the answer is going to be we do not know because unfortunately or >>firtunately we did not solve chess. >> >>Uri > >I can think of a couple. the early a6. The f4 move that really crystallized >the pawn structure. Pushing a5 isolating that pawn. Once the pawn structure >was defined, it became imperative that black advance on the kingside as white >owned the queen-side. Black fiddled while Rome burned. You are absolutely correct. What is interesting is that game 2 exposed the human weakness (for a GM , an occassional out and out blunder) and game3 exposed the machine weakness. So rather than seeing brilliant chess , we are seeing ugly chess. This game to me was typical when I beat a little handheld or dedicated machine - it plays ugly chess. But some of GK's wins against DB were similiarly ugly. The 6th game in the first match comes to mind. Like this game, GK knew he a win early and it was just a matter of technique. I am rooting for GK in the last game. For several reasons, one is that if Fritz wins - there may be faw fewer of these matches -so strictly from a personal selfish standpoint, I would like to see the human keep the upper hand.
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.