Author: Soren Riis
Date: 09:33:54 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 11:55:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 21, 1999 at 09:17:32, Soren Riis wrote: >>Robert Hyatt seems to be losing his head here. Let me remind Mr. Hyatt >>that any >>chess position either is lost, is a draw or a is win for white. Hyatt >>statement that every game he has ever gone over carefully has at least one >> blunder indicates that he does not include many of numerous wellknown drawing >> lines. >>Many of these was first played as a game between GMs. If he only include game >>in which white/black won his finding is hardly surprising, but is rather a >>simple logical consequence of the nature of the game. > >I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I am talking about OTB games >mainly ones that I watch being relayed to chess servers. But I'll say this >again, slowly this time: > > "every GM game that I have gone over in detail, using a computer for > analysis, has had at least one blunder, often two or three. These > 'blunders' don't always lose, because (ie today in Kasparov vs > Reinderman) a blunder is occasionally matched by a blunder from the > other side, or because the blunder is the difference between a score > of +5 and +2." > >So I'm not "losing" anything at all. I simply made a comment that I can back >up in probably any sample game you care to submit. You seems to suggest Kasparov made a blunder which was matched by another blunder. To me it seems that it is you who are making a blunder. If Kasparov made a blunder we must conclude that white had a clear lasting advantage position around move 19. The only alternative to 24:Rxd4 is 24:Nc6 which I doubt you are claiming is winning for white. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT WAS KASPAROVS BLUNDER! You claim kasparov made a blunder so it must be fair to ask you which of his moves was a blunder. Also what is your distintion between a blunder and a weak move? You really seems to be saying Kasporov had a won position around move 19? What was the blunder in todays game played by Anand? As your statement stands it is obviously false - it is like a piece en prise. >> >>Let me also remind him that the funny numbers your programs assign to chess >>positions (like +0.15 or -0.06 etc.) are trying to achieve something very >>similar to what Mr. Hyatt is so dismisive about - when it is done by Kasparov. >>The funny numbers are used to create positions where it is more likely that the >>opponent will make a mistake so the new position for example not is a draw but >>is a win. Only mistakes from the opponent can make a draw into a win. If chess >>computers only concern was to play correct chess they should only have 3 >>evaluations: lost, draw, won. >> >>When Kasparow got his brilliant vision (as he have explained around move 19) the >>position was very likely objectively a draw. So was the position when Kasparov >>played 24: Rxd4!!! It seems that black could have hold the balance by two >>different methods - Either 24:-,Kb6 or by playing 30...Rhe8 in the line they >>followed in the game. >> >>Mr. Hyatt writes that the `brilliance' of Rxd4 is yet to be proved. The move was >>played in a draw position, yet it was brilliant. It was brilliant from a >>pragmatic perspective. But more importantly it was also brilliant from an >>artistic point of view. And it was brilliant judged on the level of `ideas'. Mr. >>Hyatt comment indicate that (though I have great respect for him as a >>programmer) he has very little grasp or appreciation of chess. Kasparov idea is >>the creation of a true genius. Many of the ideas are hidden in the side lines. > >I don't consider a move 'brilliant' if there is a refutation that turns it into >a pumpkin. You put another piece en price -swaaappp. There is no refutation of 24:Rxd4. The only move (in the whole line) which can be refuted was blacks Qc4? which loses. >_I_ didn't go searching for the refutation. Someone else did. _I_ >only pointed out that _MANY_ 'brilliant' moves are only brilliant because the >opponent panics and blunders. And I cited Tal as one that often played such >moves. > > > >> >>Let me finally conclude that I am also genuinely impressed by the strong >>programmes who found 24: Rxd4!! In my mind no program can play 24: Rxd4 without >>having being constructed by a brilliant chess programmer. >> >>By the way: Did Crafty find 24:Rxd4? >> >>Soren Riis > >It does, but it considers it 'even' and not winning. So the difference between >Rd4 and other moves is minor and depending on how deep you let it search, it >would play one of several different possibilities. So crafty has no estetic sense nor any artistic judgement - exactly as its creator now have so clearly have demonstrated. Soren Riis
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.