Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:00:42 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 12:06:32, Mark Young wrote: >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. The main problem is that Vincent did not give explanation about the position. It is known that Hsu was never a good chess player so there is nothing new in the things that Vincent posted and I see them only as attacking hsu(I think he was better than rating of 1000 and Vincent as usually exagarate). > >> >>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. At least in the case of kramnik the mistakes that were done are circumstancal evidence. I usually do not do mistakes like that in tournament games. Uri
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.