Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:41:34 04/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2001 at 12:02:11, Uri Blass wrote: > >1)I think that weak players are in no position to say that they could play >better than kasparov. > >I suspect that part of the moves that are considered to be positional mistakes >are no mistakes because kasparov saw more than the humans who analyzed the >games. I don't see why everyone overlooks this point. DB was a non-trivial opponent and was seeing a _lot_ tactically. To claim to be able to beat it "chanceless" is a wild stretch since Kasparov himself couldn't do that, yet he smashes human opposition every tournament he enters. IE I see _nothing_ to convince me that Kramnik would do better against DB (or any other program he plays) than what Kasparov would do. > >I will trust more the top programs and when I finish my correspondence >tournament I may give the top programs of today to analyze the positions of >kasparov-deeper blue for many hours in order to find mistakes in the games. > > >2)I do not think that kasparov had special problems against computers before >1997. >Kasparov beated Deep thought easily when karpov had to work hard in order to win >against deep thought and he did it only thanks to a mistake of deep thought in a >drawn rook endgame. Karpov was a unique problem for computers.. because his "normal" playing style was closer to "anti-computer" than any other GM I can think of. Yes, he could play wild tactical games if he wanted, but he generally didn't. I don't think that when he played DT he was "in his prime" which has a lot to do with how a human handles a computer. It is mentally challenging to be so careful to avoid the tiniest tactical mistake... > >I also remember that kasparov won together with Fritz3(p90) in a blitz >tournament and later won Fritz3 in a match by lines like 1.e3 >Kasparov lost against Genius3(p90) 1.5:.5 at 25 minutes per game but later won >the same program on faster hardware 1.5:.5 at the same time control. > >I believe that Kasparov may have better chances today mainly because of the fact >that he learned to play better thanks to training with computers. > >Uri Very possibly true. He obviously is not "over the hill" by any measure I can think of...
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.