Author: Mark Young
Date: 09:06:32 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 10:24:30, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 10:14:58, Mark Young wrote: > >>On February 09, 2004 at 09:21:59, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 09, 2004 at 08:39:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 08, 2004 at 22:50:05, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>>>If case you have not figured this out by now, my intent it to continue with >>>>>posting all 11 of the Nolot positions, dig up the game score from the actual >>>>>game -- post the orginal comments made by Pierre Nolot (original author of the >>>>>article where these positions were discussed) and Feng-Hsiung Hsu, Deep Blue >>>>>Inventor, who was preparing Deep Thought/Deep Blue for the match with Kasparov >>>>>that was to come in 1995 and took a keen interest in these positions. He >>>>>believed that if Deep Blue were able to solve these type of positions quickly, >>>>>Deep Blue would have a very good shot at defeating Kasparov. It is interesting >>>>>to see what today's software on fast hardware think of these positions. >>>>> >>>>>So far these posts have gone very well and I appeciate everyone who has >>>>>particpated in this excercise. >>>>> >>>>>Nolot #3 is a semi-controversial position as there are many doubters that the >>>>>claimed winning move is truly a forced win. When one also considers the nearly >>>>>200 point in the ratings of the particpants, it easier to understand why the >>>>>favored player, GM Sergey Smagin, now 47, played the daring and very complicated >>>> >>>>[d]r2qk2r/ppp1b1pp/2n1p3/3pP1n1/3P2b1/2PB1NN1/PP4PP/R1BQK2R w - - bm Nxg5; 3 >>>>f3g5 >>>> >>>>I have studied it too and came to the conclusion that Nxg5 is a beautiful and >>>>very deep win. Nothing controversial about it. >>>> >>>>Please realise Feng-Hsiung Hsu has a rating of a 1000 points or so and his thing >>>>positional 2000 or so. He doesn't realize of course that black effectively is >>>>not playing after Nxg5. >>> >>>Hsu's rating is irrelevant for discussion about this position. >>> >>>I did not study this position but these kind of posts is the reason that people >>>do not like you. >>> >>>You could claim that you believe that Nxg5 is better without becoming personal >>>against Hsu but unfortunately instead of comparing evaluation of positions after >>>Nxg5 and Bxg5 you chose to go for a personal attack. >> >>This is no more a personal attack then you saying GM Kasparov and GM Kramnik >>threw their matches to the computers. > >The point is that the claims about Hsu's level are irrelevant for the >discussion. It is not irrelevant. When talking about a chess position with no clear cut tactics a persons chess level and chess judgement are highly relevant. > >If you want to convince people that somebody is wrong about chess position then >the right way is to talk about chess and not to say that his rating is law. > >In the case of kasparov and kramnik match the question if they lost on purpose >is clearly relevant for the discussion about the level of chess programs. Not when one claims they lost on purpose without any proof what so ever. That is saying GM Kasparov and GM Kramnik are liars and cheaters to their profession and to the public. That is a personal attack. What Vincent did is not a personal attack. > >Uri
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.