Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:44:20 06/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2005 at 17:25:51, John Merlino wrote: >On June 23, 2005 at 17:10:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On June 23, 2005 at 16:42:52, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On June 23, 2005 at 16:11:47, Peter Kappler wrote: >>> >>>>On June 23, 2005 at 14:46:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 23, 2005 at 12:44:31, Peter Kappler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Utterly marvelous choice of opening by black again. Think he is going to figure >>>>>this out anytime soon? :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>No, I predict we'll see another Ruy in game 5. >>>> >>>>But what exactly do you suggest? I get the impresssion that you think there is >>>>some magic defense against 1.e4 that leads by force to a closed, maneuvering >>>>game. It's just not the case. >>> >>>The only way this could happen is if Adams had enough preparation time to find >>>some book line(s) that allowed this to happen. And even then each line would >>>only be good ONCE, before the Hydra team closed it off. >>> >>>Do we know how much prep time Adams had with Hydra? And who is responsible for >>>Hydra's book and what is it based on? >>> >>>jm >> >>Prep time - you can forget it. Chrilly Donninger wrote on CSS that he had >>offered Mickey to contact him (!) but Mickey did never do that. I think Mickey >>had the 1-processor version of the program. I dont know on what hardware. >> >>Book is by German GM Lutz. So if you want a player as good as GM Benjamin at >>least. >> >>Let me add a personal suggestion. You can't assume that Adams did any serious >>prep at all. He's NOT famous for that kind of chess. He's a genial practical >>player against humans. Because he can find ressources also in bad looking >>positions. But I doubt that he spent his time in training for special >>anti-computer chess. And the important point is, that the Hydra people knew all >>this when they invited Adams. He's a great guy but you can't put him on the same >>level like Kasparov or Kramnik. But apart from these Russian School Players with >>always top trainers, Adams is the best living chess player who's as normal like >>a normal chess club player on 1 in team 1. Adams is so good inspite of all the >>assistance he didn't have. :) >> >>If he had been born in the USSR he would have become World Champion for sure. I >>like him very much. Hence I know all that. :) > >Fair enough, and thank you for your explanation. > >Are you (at least partially) suggesting that Adams may not have fully understood >the importance of preparation in this match, or that he simply is not the kind >of person who does a lot of preparation no matter what the situation? > >jm 1) Of course he knows all about general anti-computer play. But this is not the same as if he would play - say like the German 2100 player Eduard N. - whole days and nights against such computers. On playchess.com Adams plays 3 0 games! Against other humans. 2) Yes, I have the impression that he likes to play chess, but he is not so addicted to prep like for instance Kasparov. All together I am convinced that Adams is not the player who should play such computer exhibitions. But you saw that also players like Ponomariov, who are extremely strong also lost against these machines. Reason, they are unwilling to play stupid chess and to win with such a nonsense. We all, weakies what we are, would try such nonsense, if only we could win a single game out of 50. But we have nothing to lose either. Even if Adams won 4:2 or such with such prep it wouldn't surprise and above all please the industry. By such a play Adams would destroy the whole myst of 2900 or 3000 machines... A myst, real experts know about too well. But wait, Adams can still draw the match. ;)
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.