Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:08:26 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 13:58:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 13:39:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On February 09, 2004 at 13:00:42, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>Proof me that Hsu has a rating of more than 1000 rating points. Use any rating >>list that has to do with chess to proof your point. >> >>If you search in your database you see that the big GM's in the world have >>taught me several lessons, so analytical and technical my judgement is not >>exactly beginners stuff. >> >>When combined to the powers of good chess engines that is a very powerful >>analytical strength. >> >>Now you should proof me that Hsu has more than a 1000 rating points on his own. >>Mine you can find in your FIDE list. >> >>It will be pretty useless trying to locate Hsu there, i advice you to try the >>USCF rating list to locate Hsu. Old rating lists from 1990 fine with me too. >> >>Just find me any official rating of him. >> >>If not then i'll give him for free 400 rating points. So instead of 600 he >>starts at a 1000 then. Very generous of me. >> >>Vincent > >You claimed that he has 1000 rating points so you have to prove that he does not >deserve more than it based on games. > >Even if Hsu did not play in tournaments it does not prove that he does not >deserve rating of more than 1000. Someone without a rating but knowing all the chess rules including en passant and knowing some basic development enters at 600 in USA, so let's indeed estimate Hsu at 600 until you can disproof that. >Every intelligent person can get easily level of rating above 1000 only by >training in games against the computer. Well i suggest you go play draughts computers. Getting above 1000 is not so easy there :) >I have no idea what 1000 means(In israel the minimal rating is 1300 but my >impression from chessmaster personalities with rating 1000 is that a lot of >players with no experience in tournaments can beat them easily). In USA there are many 600 rated players. In Netherlands only the higher competition leagues were counted until recently and the rating started at around 1200 rating until Jan Kaan entered the rating list at 1015: dutch rating list 1999: 1207 7814059 KAAN, J.E.F. M 1015* 7 Still having the record for being the lowest rated person on the rating list for the longest period of time. Only your record to achieve a correspondence rating of 2000 points despite using engines of 2400+ is another formidable achievement of mankind. Only after a lot of practicing he managed to improve that a bit. >There are a lot of players who never played in tournament and are better than >it. >Uri We didn't hire you for general statements. Book makers in general bet the opposite of what you bet. Which program do you bet wins the world title in 2004?
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.