Author: KarinsDad
Date: 12:30:56 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 13:42:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] >>Prof. Hyatt, the genuine chess fan recognizes the magic >>of Rxd4, can you understand so? >> >> > >only to a certain degree. If it turns out that black has a forced win, >how is the sac remembered then? IE if someone overlooks something and >hangs a pawn, but after it is taken, there turns out to be a winning attack, >was that oversight brilliant or sloppy? That was my only point here. > >Kasparov loves that kind of move. As do we all. I'm only saying that many >times, such 'brilliant' moves turn out to be absolute lemons, once the defense >is found. Can someone find such OTB? Maybe or maybe not. In the actual game? >No of course, as Kasparov won. What about playing that against a computer? Robert, Think I have to step to the other side of the fence from you on this one. Moves like Rxd4 are the reason many people love chess. Playing portions of this game against a computer is irrelevant. Once computer programs become so great that they always win against humans, your question will have even less bearing. At that point in time, few people will care what the computer says about any given game (with the exception of for analysis) since all games with humans will be flawed with respect to the computer. A computer will always find mistakes between games between humans. Right now, that is not the case, so the question appears pertinent. If Crafty wins a computer/computer tournament against strong competition, would you not feel good about it? If it's games had slight imperfections that other computers found out under further analysis, would you be less happy with the result of winning the tournament? The move is brilliant not because it is a guaranteed win, but rather because it contributed to winning the game in a spectacular way, both on the board and psychologically. It matters not whether a computer can detect that it is a lemon. It only matters that Topolov could not. Isn't that the beauty of playing chess? If the move would have lost for Kasparov, most of the chess world would have admired Topolov for coming up with the refutation over the board and the sacrifice would have still been remembered. A footnote in chess history would have been made in either case. That also contributed to making the win brilliant (or at least spectacular). KarinsDad > It >might have turned out even better for him. Or it might have lost if the machine >played Rhe8 and that is good enough to hold on. > >Everyone knows my opinion of 'Kasparov, the man'. I still respect and admire >'Kasparov, the chessplayer' however. And this was only about 'the chessplayer' >and the move he played... was it good, bad, or just legal? > > > >> >> >>>Best regards, Jeroen
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.