Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:39:13 02/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2002 at 12:16:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 01, 2002 at 12:14:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 01, 2002 at 11:40:02, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >> >>>On February 01, 2002 at 11:27:30, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On February 01, 2002 at 10:59:15, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 01, 2002 at 07:45:41, Graham Laight wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>A single processor machine simply hasn't got the power to overcome this >>>>>>opponent. >>>>>> >>>>>>However, I think he'll slip up a couple of times - hence the draws. >>>>>> >>>>>>-g >>>>>You underestimate Computers very much.The great majority of GM games >>>>>are won and lost through elementary tactical errors.Rebel will crush >>>>>wanWely. >>>> >>>> >>>>No >>>> >>>>The great majority of GM games at tournament time control are not won or lost >>>>for elementary tactical reasons. >>>> >>>>There are games when GM's do elementary tactical errors but they are not >>>>majority of the GM-GM games. >>>> >>>>It is not clear who is going to win in the match but even I have some games that >>>>I drew with no tactical errors based on computer analysis and I am not close to >>>>be a GM. >>>> >>>>Van wely is supposed to be also better than the average GM. >>>> >>>>Uri >>>By Elementary I meant Elementary from a Computer Stand point.The Tactics can >>>be very Deep Of course.It is Statistics that GM games are won and lost through >>>Tactics Mostly.There are many examples but I recommend going over Anand's three >>>loses at Dortmund to Moro, Kramnik,and Topolov . >> >>Most of the GM games are drawn and there are many draws with no tactical >>mistakes. >> >>You may be right that most of the games when GM lose are because of tactical >>mistakes but in order to be fair you need to take all the game when most of them >>are drawn. >> >>Uri > >I can add that GM Robert heubner drew 6 games against Fritz some monthes ago and >in most of the games there were no tactical mistakes. > >Uri Exactly and Huebner is 2600 and very old and not that actively playing like Van Wely of course and Huebner never played a match versus computers before at slow level (or it must have been 10 years ago). He is old enough to no longer have the ambition to proof himself. Van Wely is nearly 2700 and has those ambitions. We will see.
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.