Author: stuart taylor
Date: 02:12:18 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 04:57:00, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On April 25, 2001 at 02:42:16, Tanya Deborah wrote: > >> >> >>Here is a little interview about * Kramnik-Junior 6 game * in the past Dortmund >>GM tournament in where Kramnik beat Junior in a very easy way. >> >>Please read this : >> >> >>ChessBase: Did you prepare for today’s game? >> >>Kramnik: Yes, it was generally my plan to get the computer into time trouble so >>it would blunder something... >> >>CB: And seriously? >>Kramnik: Okay, I played some training games with Fritz, and I tried all kinds of >>setups, because to go for the main lines against the computer makes no sense at >>all – you simply forget something and the computer never does this at all. That >>is why you have to find an interesting setup where the computer can go wrong. I >>tried several different things and finally decided that this setup is the best: >>Stonewall, 1.d4 d5 2.e3 and then the computer always plays 2...Nf6 and after >>3.Bd3 it is very good that the computer plays 3...e6. It is okay but it gives >>you very pleasant type of play against the computer. Then you go 4.f4 and >>finally you get what you want. I tried several setups, as I already mentioned, >>but in this setup the computer was doing extremely badly. In one training game I >>mated the computer very similar to this, even faster. I think in 25 moves. >> >> >>CB: So actually you got what you wanted in the first four moves. >> >>Kramnik: That’s not the end of the story. I didn’t get any advantage out of the >>opening, maybe my position was even slightly worse, but I was happy with it, >>because it is exactly the position you need to get against the computer. The >>objective evaluation doesn’t really matter so much. I expected the computer to >>go wrong at some point and it did so. 13...g6 and 15...Nxd2 were very bad. But >>it was very natural. In fact when I was backstage during the game I mentioned to >>Piket that I think the computer will play Nxd2 at some point, because this is an >>aweful positional move. And finally in two or three move the computer took on >>d2. I simply understand the mentality of the computer and that is why I am so >>successful. >> >>******************** >> >>The Interview is very CLEAR. >> >>I think, that the program that play against Kramnik in October will need to have >>more than a Super fast computer. I think that it will be very good to make a >>Special opening book to avoid some unknown openings that Kramnik will have >>prepare for the machine. A new opening book-with some help by GrandMasters to >>know how to play better against the best Anti computer technique by Kramnik. >> >>Kramnik will know very good the program and he will prepare for a secure win. >> >>I wish that the program can show to us a very good chess in October, and also I >>will not like to see Kramnik winning almost all the games. >> >>Kramnik is very dangerous!!! with a copy of the program three months before!! >>Please, we need to make something to avoid the disaster! >> >>Tanya Deborah. > >My dad had discovered that stonewall was good against the computer, about ten >years ago and showed me how to play that opening three years ago, when i started >playing chess (i have always known the moves, but never taken the game too >seriously until 3 yrs ago) and i used to beat up chessmaster 5500 so bad with >that opening. >I think that almost all programs have anti stonewall opening books or knowledge >after the Kramnik beating of Junior, but i think it is strange that Kramnik >openly admits that he needs anti prog play in order to win and he avoids main >lines because ^because to go for the main lines against the computer makes no >sense at all – you simply forget something and the computer never does this at >all. ^ > >Regards >Jonas Computers too, need to be made anti human. So much of succesful chess playing seems to be in preparations e.g. anti-whatever, openings, endgame knowledge, that the actual skill at the board is a relatively small matter. But the homework is probably also a part of the skill of a player. But it sure puts me off of chess a little. I used to think that chess tests a persons genius level etc. The fact of that being less so than I thought makes it easier for me to see a greater value in other pursuits (than I used to, when I was more addicted to chess). S.Taylor
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.