Author: martin fierz
Date: 02:00:46 05/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 11:51:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 08, 2004 at 10:50:57, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>>On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>>>correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>>>> >>>>>>:_( >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>>>and dispose of you. >>>> >>>>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >>>> >>>>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>>>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>>>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >>>> >>>>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>>>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >>>> >>>>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>>>questionmark moves from Junior! >>>> >>>>-S. >>> >>>I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-) >>> >>>Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is >>>playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be >>>reviewed. >>> >>>Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and >>>Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according >>>to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are >>>they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point >>>shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak >>>about objectivity here. You can only look at the results. >>> >>>Vas >> >>Let's take a look at some of the moves the annotator didn't like: >> >>[D]r2q1rk1/pp1n1ppp/2pbpn2/3p3b/8/1P1PPNPP/PBPN1PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 10 >> >>Zappa plays the obvious 10 ...e5. Deep Blue played 10 ...h6. I won't call this >>a bad move, but it's clearly a pass move. > >That isn't very convincing. Did you look at _your_ PV? move 4? :) > >Order doesn't mean much to alpha/beta as it scores positions, not moves as they >are played. > >First impression is that h6 and e5 transpose to the _same_ position... > > >> >>1... e6-e5 2. e3-e4 Rf8-e8 3. Rf1-e1 Ra8-c8 4. a2-a4 h7-h6 5. Bb2-c3 Qd8-c7 6. >>a4-a5 Bd6-c5 7. Qd1-b1 >> = (0.25) Depth: 12/34 00:01:09.00 41299kN >> >>[D]r4rk1/pp1n1pp1/2pbpn1p/q2p3b/8/PP1PPNPP/1BPN1PB1/R3QRK1 b - - 0 12 >> >>Once again Zappa wants e5. Deep Blue played Bc7, which is a pass move at best, >>and I would think the bishop is actually better on D6. >> >>1... e6-e5 2. c2-c4 Qa5-a6 3. d3-d4 e5-e4 4. Nf3-h4 Ra8-e8 5. Nh4-f5 Bd6-c7 6. >>Ra1-c1 Nd7-b6 7. c4xd5 Nb6xd5 >> = (0.24) Depth: 11/32 00:00:49.38 30722kN > >Same comment. Look at your move 5. :) > >You agree with DB more than you think... > > >> >>[D]r4rk1/ppbn1pp1/2p1pn1p/q2p3b/7N/PP1PP1PP/1BPN1PB1/R3QRK1 b - - 0 13 >> >>And Zappa is still dying for e5 :) Deep Blue played g5?, which cannot be >>considered anything but a blunder. > >Kasparov said "this is black's only hope. Any other move simply loses. This >makes it a fight." which makes it pretty clear that before something already went wrong for black... if you have to play g5, even if it's still a fight, something is very wrong. cheers martin > > >> >>1... e6-e5 2. c2-c4 Ra8-d8 3. c4xd5 Nf6xd5 4. d3-d4 f7-f5 5. Nh4xf5 Rf8xf5 6. >>e3-e4 Rf5-g5 7. e4xd5 c6xd5 >> = (0.26) Depth: 11/32 00:00:42.90 26529kN >> >>Lets be clear: no one will ever know exactly how strong Deep Blue was. All we >>have are the games, and those are not convincing. >> >>anthony
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.