Author: KarinsDad
Date: 22:07:47 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 1999 at 23:37:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] >>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... Ok, you've totally lost me here. If you have a well played loss, then you have by default blundered, at least once. There is no other possibility. The blunder(s) may be infinitesimally obscure, but you have made a mistake(s) none the less. In my example, it was not that Crafty has made obvious blunders, but that it took analysis from a series of other computers to find the obscure mistakes (which it still makes in it's current incarnation) that it made. Knowing that Crafty played extremely well, but not perfect was the question. I can understand the position (which is what I think you were saying) that you would rather lose with a series of infinitesimally obscure mistakes than win with a bunch of more obvious mistakes. That's a fair statement. But a different way of saying my question is: Would the fact that a bunch of computers running around the world for several hours or days analyzing the games that Crafty played in such a tournament and finding a series of infinitesimally obscure mistakes which would have eventually resulted in one or more draws or losses which would have prevented Crafty from winning the tournament detract from your joy that Crafty won the tournament? Or would you just be proud of your accomplishment and not worry that Crafty wasn't perfect? If the answer is yes, you would be happy and proud, doesn't the same apply to this game? Especially since the player of the "bolt of lightning" move is the one who had the victory. If the answer is no, then I must admit that I feel sorry that you are missing one of the great joys of life. The thrill of victory unspoiled by the petty comments (or analysis) of others. >> >>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... Correct me if I am wrong as I have not read all of the posts yet, but the move Rxd4 has not been shown to be an obvious blunder. From what I've read, it hasn't even been show to be a substantially weaker move. If it takes hours or days for people running the best computer programs around to find weaknesses in the play, doesn't that imply that at least good chess (if not great) was played? Of course a computer program from 100 years in the future that plays nearly flawless chess may find minor mistakes or even a lemon in a matter of 30 second on this game, however, what would that matter? Fifty years ago, we would not be having this conversation since there would be no computers and very few GMs who would have been able to analyze the game to the degree that such minor mistakes could be found. We don't live in a perfect world. But one aspect of the world that we do live in is that at all levels of human versus human chess, there is always a human on the other side of the board who along with his or her strengths, also has his or her weaknesses (such as being psyched out by a very strong move). Garry used several weapons in his arsenal, not just good chess playing. This is very smart on his part and illustrates why he is the champion that he is. KarinsDad > >> >>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.