Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:34:12 03/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 1999 at 18:55:38, blass uri wrote: > >On March 03, 1999 at 17:28:37, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On March 03, 1999 at 16:36:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 03, 1999 at 14:51:25, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On March 03, 1999 at 12:22:42, Michael Ginat wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>It's a pity someone like Karpov didn't get a chance to play Deeper Blue - I >>>>>can't imagine him resigning a drawn position, and he would be able to steer the >>>>>games along positional paths without playing nonsense openings. >>>> >>>>I do not think that karpov is good against computers >>>>he played a game against Deep thought with white in 1990 and won a drawn rook >>>>endgame only because of a mistake of deep thought. >>>> >>>>This is the position when Deep thought did the mistake: >>>>8/5k2/R5pp/3pP3/p2r1PK1/8/7P/8 b - - 0 1 >>>> >>>>Deep thought played Rc4 when g5 was the right move. >>>> >>>>Commercial programs avoid the mistake of Deep thought. >>>> >>>>For example Fritz5(16 bit) has no problem to play g5. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>I have played some games against Karpov. And believe me, he is the strongest >>>GM I have ever had the chance to play. the move g5 is trivial to find, and >>>why DT didn't find it is anyone's guess. That is the only move crafty ever >>>considers, from .01 seconds to 1 hour, so no idea what DT did wrong... But >>>just because Karpov was lucky to draw doesn't mean he can't play chess, let >>>me guarantee you. >> >>I did not say that karpov was lucky to draw but that karpov was lucky to win. >> >>Karpov won the game after 47...Rc4 48.h4 Rd4 49.Rf6+ Kg7 50.Ra6 Kf7 51.h5(deep >>thought finally realised here that it was worse) gxh5+ > >I am not sure about the losing mistake and it may be 51...gxh5+ because I do not >see a clear win after 51...g5 > >I am only sure about the fact that karpov was lucky to win the game > >Uri I understand your comment, but I don't understand the 'concept.' IE I have played in a few tournaments in my time. I assume you have too. Have you _ever_ won a game by 'luck'? I have. Playing along and just _barely_ notice that Rxf6 leads to a mate you hadn't noticed before? That wasn't part of your plan at all. Or, on the flip side, you go over your game after you win and discover your opponent could have simply ripped your queen but he was too busy defending against mate and overlooked (for 5+ minutes) that it was hung? Or your opponent hung his queen? I have seen GM players outright hang queens in 40/2hr games, I have seen them overlook mate in 2 and get killed. So "mistakes" are a part of the game. Which begs the question "Why, when deep blue makes a mistake, is it somehow 'different' than when any other player makes a mistake?" IE why is it 'ok' to talk about Karpov being lucky to win, and Kasparov being unlucky to lose, when we talk about playing DB, but when someone resigns a drawn position against Kasparov it is not a 'big deal'. Yet when Kasparov resigns a drawn position against DB it is earth-shaking? The same standard ought to apply to every chess player, uniformly, regardless of whether they have blood or electrons flowing through them. :) I watch my program find lucky wins. I watch it find unlucky losses. And I also watch it play a lot of decent chess. Luck has _always_ been a part of chess, and always will be, no doubt...
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.