Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:01:56 05/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2004 at 10:38:17, Vasik Rajlich wrote: kasparov just shuffles something on 3 rows and you call him lucky instead of the machine plain stupid? :) [lots of laughter] >On May 10, 2004 at 07:35:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 10, 2004 at 06:28:13, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>fritz3 beated deep blue in world champs 1995. >> >>rebel8 beated deepblue junior playing blitz against it in world champs 1999. >> >>And no it didn't move instantly deepblue junior. It used its time up very >>wisely. >> >>It just didn't have a book, that's all. >> >>the moves played by deepblue are horrible. real horrible. >> >>now you try to convince me that those nonsense moves played by deep blue which >>all have questionmarks are good? :) >> >>you're funny. > >They're playable. A lot of things in chess are playable - even if you'll never >play them yourself. > >> >>I happen to be FM and after intensive analysis i conclude that kasparov didn't >>do a thing in game 1, but that deep blue committed suicide there with moves like >>h6 g5 and another shitload of moves. >> > >By the way even the endgame wasn't that easy to win. In fact Kasparov was quite >lucky that at some point that it was winning, these types of endings will >usually somehow dissipate into a draw. After nine "?" moves for one side and >four or five "!" moves for the other I'd at least think the ending wouldn't be >so interesting. > >Vas > >>>On May 08, 2004 at 20:25:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On May 08, 2004 at 18:55:16, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 08, 2004 at 12:14:42, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I will accept that my 4 ply search plays pass moves some of the time :) Zappa >>>>>>uses pure R=3 now, and perhaps the evaluation isn't quite good enough for it. >>>>>> >>>>>>anthony >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In my opinion 10...h6 is not merely a pass move or waste of time. White may >>>>>plan to push the g-pawn to g4 and drive the black bishop to g6 aiming to >>>>>exchange his knight for the bishop later, playing the knight to h4. Thus >>>>>10...h6 gives black refuge. Besides, the bishop positioned at h7 would be very >>>>>useful later on, perhaps after the push you mentioned that Zappa plays right >>>>>away, exerting pressure on the e4 square... >>>>> >>>>>Just an idea. One glance at the diagram... Caveat emptor :-) >>>> >>>>I tend to agree with Seirawan on this matter more, after h6 you can resign here >>>>positionally with black. >>> >>>Aha, so it was Seirawan who is responsible for these ridiculous annotations. >>>That would explain a lot. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but his many >>>opinions shouldn't be confused for facts. >>> >>>It was quite funny to watch Seirawan during Fritz-Kasparov, game 4. Kasparov >>>with black chose the QGA, breaking the old boring stereotyped rule that you >>>shouldn't let computers play open positions. At this point, there would be >>>several explanations: >>> >>>1) Kasparov has a different opinion about what computer can and can't do. >>>2) Kasparov has a different idea about the QGA and where his preparation will >>>lead him. >>>3) Kasparov made a horrible opening blunder that even beginners should be able >>>to avoid by following some simple logic. >>> >>>The next half hour or so were filled with explanations of why exactly you >>>shouldn't give computers these types of positions. Followed by congratulations >>>to the Fritz opening team for outfoxing Kasparov in the opening. It was really >>>funny. >>> >>>Of course a few moves later of course the "danger" had passed, and it was clear >>>who had had his way in the opening - once again. >>> >>>Chess is not easy, and there are many reasonable ways to play just about any >>>position. It's silly to think that the one you like is the correct one, or the >>>only one. >>> >>>Vas
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.