Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 11:05:46 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 09:29:12, Amir Ban wrote: Amir, I agree that Junior earned its points honestly. I also agree with most you write about these games. Still, you don't point out anything about the losses against Kramnik and Piket. And that was exactly what I had in mind writing this thread. Those two games showed exactly where chess computer programs still can be improved. And HAVE to be improved, otherwise human GM's will have good chances to get more points next year. And they will, because they have learnt. IMO if you solve most of the problems about king's attacks and closed positions, then it will be almost impossible for the strongest GM's ta beat a computer. Because in that case they have no advantage in any type of position anymore. But in 2000 there is still not much to be done when a clever player manages to block the position or start a slow attack: The programs do not know about this and only human mistakes will save them. So the crucial question is: When will one of the leading programmer stop searching for higher NPS, better searching techniques etc? When somebody will REALLY tackle the 2 problems I mentioned? Because otherwise a computer can still be beaten in 2010, running on 500 GHz. But as I already mentioned: This is the computerchess paradox: NOBODY wants to sac NPS for more knowledge. And as long as nobody wants to quit this 'rule', human GM's are still superior in knowledge and understanding of the game. Jeroen >This is a one sided view. No doubt Junior showed problems at Dortmund, which is >why it scored only 4.5 points. One the other hand, those 4.5 points were earned >honestly, almost all of them on the strength of positional rather than tactical >understanding. There was very little tactics at Dortmund, because the opponents >were good enough not to allow it. This was most obvious against Bareev. Boris >Alterman told me before the game: "There will be no tactics whatever against >him, and if you start seeing tactics, it will be bad news because it means you >are already lost." > >IMO Junior showed better judgement of several positions than the GM opponent. >Bareev did not blunder the pawn, he sac'ed it, and Junior quickly pointed out >that he did not enough compensation for it. Junior showed better judgement than >Leko after the 28'th move, by insisting correctly that black is now better, >after which Leko sac'ed again into an endgame he thought he could not lose but >he was wrong. > >Akopian clearly mishandled his opening, and didn't know what hit him after Nfd7. >I think it was his dumb luck that he was not immediately lost. He had no >intention of putting his knight on f8 and rook on g8 and play a miserably >passive game. I was very glad that Junior was white rather than black in this >game because I think a computer would be crucified for playing like Akopian. > >Anand, too, was frustrated in his attempts to provoke the closing of the >position. He later said that after Junior failed to play c4, he thought of >playing the silly maneouvre Bc2 and Qd3 to incite c4 again ! In the end he was >the one to look silly after Qc7, a6 and Nh5. > >Leko tried to play a closed game, but he didn't get what he wanted. > >I've heard several people in Dortmund say that the GM's are starting to adopt a >computer style. In particular the game Anand-Adams was one in which Anand showed >that he can be a very strong computer. > >Amir
This page took 0.03 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.