Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:23:15 02/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2004 at 08:04:22, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 19:34:12, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 09, 2004 at 18:39:43, Mark Young 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. >>> >>>No it is not circumstancal evidence. Not when one can site many examples of both >>>GM Kasparov and GM Kramnik making very shallow tactical oversites before and >>>after their matches with computers. >>> >>>It is common to see players blunder like this when playing computers. This is >>>not just true for GM Kasparov or GM Kramnik. >>> >>>The stress of playing a computer is the cause of most of these blunders. It is a >>>different kind of chess then playing a human. >>> >>>Unless one can site proof that GM Kasparov and GM Kramnik cheated the public >>>with fake a match. It stands as a baseless attack on both GM Kasparov and GM >>>Kramnik. >>> >>>> >>>>I usually do not do mistakes like that in tournament games. >>> >>>I don't have your games, but I would not be surprised if many could be found. >> >>I do not claim that I do not blunder and I do not claim that I never blunder by >>something that computers need a short search to avoid. >> >>The point is that I usually do not blunder by something so simple like kramnik >>did when computers needs one ply search to see that a move is losing a piece and >>you only need to calculate 3 plies forward after your move(check escape >>capture). >> >>Here is an example of one of my blunders that is slightly harder to avoid than >>the blunder of kramnik. >> >> >>[D]6rk/1p1Q3p/1qp2p1N/4p3/1p2P3/3P1PbP/2p5/5R1K b - - 0 30 >> >> >>I played Bf4 and lost because of a forced mate when Qf2 was winning. >>I simply did not see on time Nf7+ Kg7 Ng5+ Kg6 Qxh7+ Kxg5 h4# >> >>The main problem was that I did not consider Ng5+ because g5 was so protected >>but you need to calculate 5 plies forward after Bf4 to see Qxh7+ to start to >>suspect what is going on when Kramnik needed to see less plies forward to avoid >>his blunder. >> >>I thought also about Qf2 in the game but did not see that it is winning and >>again more than 3 ply search is needed to see the final result of it and I had >>not unlimited time so I had to decide about a move. >> >>Uri > > >Its pretty unbelievable to blunder at all in correspondence . . . > >anthony I was not talking about correspondence game but about tournament games but It is not unbelievable to blunder in correspondence games and the main reason for blunders in these games is clerical errors. In the game against England my opponent was sure that I was going to capture his knight move so he was probably too lazy to check if I really played did it. I believe that he used Fritz for analysis but it did not help him to see that he is analyzing the wrong position. Here is the game My opponnet(SIM from England) said that he wrote my 29.Nxg6 as 29.Bxe4 so after 30.Nxh4 had to resign Note that Fritz likes 29.Bxe4 even after a long search because it is not materialistic enough when other programs find 29.Nxg6. 29.Nxg6 wins a pawn when 29.Bxe4 does not win a pawn and small search depth is not Fritz8.008's problem. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4 17.Bg5 h6 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Qd2 h5 20.Ra3 h4 21.Bxc5 dxc5 22.Nf1 Nh5 23.Ne3 Nf6 24.axb5 axb5 25.Rea1 Rb8 26.Ra7 Bc8 27.Qd1 Bg7 28.Nxh4 Nxe4 29.Nxg6 Qh4 30.Nxh4 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.