Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 12:04:07 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 13:24:33, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>The 2 positions in question... >> >>[Event "WCC"] >>[Site "13.0-0?? and 16.c4???????????"] >>[Date "1995.12.13"] >>[Round "?"] >>[White "Deep Thought II"] >>[Black "Fritz3"] >>[Result "0-1"] >>[WhiteElo "?"] >>[BlackElo "?"] >>[ECO "B33"] >> >>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 >>a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10. Nd5 f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 f4 13. O-O Rg8 >>14. Kh1 Rg6 15. Qd1 Rc8 16. c4 Qh4 17. g3 Qh3 18. Qd2 f3 19. Rg1 Rh6 20. >>Qxh6 Qxh6 21. cxb5 Bxd5 22. exd5 Nb4 23. Bf5 Rc5 24. bxa6 Nxa6 25. Nc2 >>Qd2 26. Ne1 Rxd5 27. Nxf3 Qxf2 28. Be4 Ra5 29. Rg2 Qe3 30. Re1 Qh6 31. >>Bc6+ Kd8 32. a3 f5 33. Rc2 Rc5 34. Rxc5 Nxc5 35. Rf1 Be7 36. a4 f4 37. >>gxf4 Qxf4 38. Rg1 Nxa4 39. b4 Qxb4 0-1 >> >>16.c4?? losing a pawn and more. Rebel needs 9 plies and 0:17 to see >>16.c4 drop to -1.39 where 16.g3 would hold the position. >> >> >>[Event "DB-GK the rematch"] >>[Site "am Rd1; bm Rf5+"] >>[Date "2000.05.31"] >>[Round "?"] >>[White "DEEP BLUE"] >>[Black "Garry Kasparov"] >>[Result "0-1"] >>[WhiteElo "?"] >>[BlackElo "?"] >>[FEN "4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 1"] >> >>DB played Rd1?? which caused a giant immediate material loss where Rf5+ >>is the obvious defence. The most convincing argument is the score DB gave >>for Rd1?? way too positive (perhaps Uri remembers) and the very negative >>(and correct) scores some of the micro's gave when they did an analysis. >> >>Ed > >In your first example, DT/DB/whatever had intended to play g3 when there was a >hardware fault. They got it up and running again, but it didn't have time to >get to fail low on c4 again. Just read my other posting on this topic. A 7 million NPS machine should guarantee the refusal of 16.c4?? within half a second. Just try a few programs you own on the position. >In your second example, there was a C macro expansion error (Eugene Nalimov >quoting Murray Campbell). Everytime they lose we get a poor excuse. Same story with the 6 games in Paderborn. Ed >Everybody has hardware problems sometimes, and everybody has software bugs too. ><shrug> Ironically, it might have been this bug that won it the match vs. GK: >if it hadn't been there, and the machine had consequently played the ending >better, GK might have been more prepared for the better play DB exhibited in >later match games. > >Dave
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.