Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:52:48 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
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. Why would that matter. Murray Campbell, for example, is a 2200+ player. As far as the Nolot positions go, I've seen Berliner raise the _same_ issue, and he is not a 1000 player either, not by a long shot... They also had GM-level players that looked at DB analysis during the tuning phase, so it is possible _they_ commented as well and Hsu was relaying it. You make a poor assumption when you assume that the analysis came _only_ from Hsu, he could have been the "messenger" only... > >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
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.