Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:37:28 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 15:30:56, KarinsDad wrote: >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? Sorry, but you totally misread me. Ask on ICC. I'm much happier with a well- played loss than I am with a blunderful win. Because blunders won't always be lucky enough to win, while good play will eventually prevail... > >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? A matter of perspective, I suppose. But something about 'hoping the opponent won't play the best moves' leaves me a bit cold, I think... > >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.