Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:18:36 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 14:08:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. No I did not play enough games to be on the rating list so maybe you found 2000 for me for that reason. I have 7/8 in the preliminary olympiad against average near 2300 ICCF rating I play at board 6 of Israel. > >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? I do not know. Shredder seems to be the favourite to win but I will guess different this time. I guess Falcon is going to win it. 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.