Author: Tanya Deborah
Date: 00:51:02 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 09:48:52, Robert Hyatt 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. > > >A "small book" won't cut it. The first thing the program is going to have to >know is how to not lose when white plays a stonewall. The computer loses these >games for several reasons: (1) the black pawn on e6; (2) the black bishop >trapped behind that pawn and cut off from the kingside; (3) white's space on >the kingside with pawns at d4, e3 and f4. > >When white gets ready for g4 and h4, black has the queen-side to himself, >but he has probably castled kingside and gets smothered. There are defenses >to this. They are _not_ "book defenses" however. A GM might well try >f4 and if black plays d5 then d4 and there you go again. I tried to cure this >for a couple of years with book lines. Even had a GM helping. It was hopeless >to fix, until I modified the evaluation to handle the opening directly. Hi Bob! You are right!, The stonewall is almost always a killer opening for a computer program. It is a pity that it was hopeless to fix. I think that a very big opening book that try to avoid all the StoneHall positions may be help. I dont know, it is dificult to say, but the clear point is that the programmers will try to avoid it when Kramnik play with white. If not, the program will not have any chance to win. In ICC i saw JRLOK playing very good games in this way, Also GOLDMUND is really amazing when he play against some programs in ICC !! GOLDMUND is a GM Russian player named Alexander Rustemov! This player is so incredible!; I think that is one of the best Anti-computer players of the world. I love his matches against Scrappy, he play moves like e3 and then f4!, or c3! and win sometimes! JRLOK, is also AMAZING!! against computers! But i dont know who is him... Do you know something about him?? Thanks Bob! Regards, Tanya, D
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.