Author: Mike Castañuela
Date: 11:07:06 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 13:35:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 21, 1999 at 12:33:54, Soren Riis wrote: > >>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. >> > >Then lets leave it at that. That is your opinion. "obviously false" doesn't >say much, because I don't see anything obvious about it. You have somehow >really turned around what I posted, so I am going to try to correct you one >more time. Please pay attention: > >Kasparov played the move Rxd4. He won the game. But it is _not_ clear that >Rxd4 is winning. Again. In the posts of J. Noomen, S. Riis and me, it isn't the point. One thing that the computers don't understand is beauty. Matemathics (how you are, or scientific) is too one important element of the game. But, at the heat of a game between humans, the esthetical (beauty) of Rxd4 is not comprised by, say us: +-, 1.2 pawns, 'incorrect sacrifuce', etc. Kasparov plays Rxd4 and, to the look of us (humans), this is beautiful. This is enhanced by the fact, that, by analysis carried until now, with best defense of black (30... Rhe8) this is DRAW, not black wins how you states. Too, the precision of whole secuence of moves carried by Kasparov until end is impressive. All prior is the point, and not mathematical, objectives terms. To my eyes, you are biased to Kasparov, and not recognizing the true target of the entire post (I believe, obviously, that 'us' are correct here, and not you, :) ) In other posts you're showing more objectivity, and teaching several technical notes to many inclusive; here no. If you go back to the beginning of this thread, there were >moves suggested for black that could well have not lost the game. So, as I >said originally, Kasparov's opponent may well have blundered and lost, just >as Kasparov's opponent two days made a mistake and lost quickly. Yes it is >possible Kasparov could have won both games. But clearly the opponent's (both) >did not find the best possible moves. And in that light, at least for Rxd4, >if the suggested rook move really does hold on, then it would seem that Rxd4 >_was_ a mistake. And if the rook move does better than hold on, as some >analysis suggested, then Rxd4 _may_ have been a losing move (blunder) and not >a brilliant move. > >I said no more, no less, than the above. Until I see something that convinces >me that there was no better resistance along the way, I'm always suspicious of >such deep sacrifices that are not completely forced for 20 moves or so. This >one certainly wasn't absolutely forced at every move. > > > >>>> >>>>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. >> > > >isn't that enough? Black played a move that loses. Was there a move that held >on or even won? If so, do you _still_ want to maintain that Rxd4 was brilliant? > > >>>_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 > >funny... I'd perhaps say that maybe it won't play the move because the move is >not so good? When you demonstrate it is a forced win, my opinion will change. >At present, 'the jury is out.'... IE this is just like the famous DB vs >Kasparov discussion last year... does Re8 draw in this position? Took a lot >of analysis to find that it did... yet Kasparov never mentioned it as a choice >until _after_ it was analyzed. He could have overlooked something in his Rxd4 >analysis just as easily, even more so in fact, because the DB game was _highly_ >forced at that point, while this game was not...
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.